The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Wastewater Treatment Works

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement on wastewater treatment works.

Mr Peter Robinson: Thank you for the opportunity to make a statement on the siting of the new wastewater treatment works for north Down and Ards.
I am aware of the concerns in the local communities of north Down and Ards about the siting of the project. Many public representatives have raised the matter with me, and I have answered many questions in the Assembly. The subject is of considerable interest to Members and the general population in north Down and Ards, and it is important that I advise the Assembly of my decision. I thought it more appropriate to give Members an opportunity to comment, rather than simply sneak out a statement.
No one can dispute the need for a wastewater treatment works. Many Members and, indeed, the public may be surprised to know that at present wastewater from Bangor, Donaghadee and Millisle is largely untreated. It is simply pumped out to sea after what Water Service engineers describe as coarse screening. I shall not go into too many details of what that involves — I will leave it to hon Members’ imaginations.
This method has been the traditional way of disposing of wastewater from coastal towns throughout the UK for the past 100 years and is in line with a report prepared by a Royal Commission in 1912. Everyone will agree that it is not acceptable in the twenty-first century. The public rightly expects us to do all we can to protect the environment and our beaches. That means that we must effectively treat wastewater before we discharge it to the sea.
We must also have regard to the European Union Directive on wastewater treatment. That Directive was transposed into our local law by the Urban wastewater Treatment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995. Those Regulations oblige us to provide treatment for all wastewater discharges. The Environment and Heritage Service determines the discharge standard.
We should have provided the required treatment at Bangor and Donaghadee by 31 December 2000. We have until 31 December 2005 to provide it at Millisle. We are thus in breach of the Regulations and the Directive. We are already at risk of infraction proceedings by the European Union, in relation not only to Bangor but also to many other towns in Northern Ireland. That sorry position is the direct result of many years of underfunding of water and sewerage services by previous Administrations. I make no apology for having to say that, but we are paying a heavy price for years of neglect.
I will want to come back at a later date on how we might best meet the huge investment needs — in the order of £3 billion over a 20-year period — that we are facing. In fairness to the Water Service, it has been seeking for the best part of the past 10 years to prepare for the requirements of the EU Directive.
The original proposal was for Bangor to be served by a new wastewater treatment works located close to the present sea outfall near Groomsport. Three possible sites were initially identified, and planning approval was obtained for one of the sites. However, the scheme was being progressed by way of a private finance initiative, and the transfer of planning approval to a private operator, together with the land acquisition process, meant that the proposal was likely to be subject to a public inquiry. After further evaluation against planning and environmental criteria, it was apparent that the site selection process that was followed was insufficiently detailed to support the proposal.
Therefore a decision was taken to return to a clean sheet of paper and start all over again. Consulting engineers were appointed in December 1997. They were asked to consider alternative strategies for wastewater treatment in the whole north Down and Ards area. They were also asked to identify and assess possible locations for the treatment facilities.
The consultants’ appraisal study report was made public in March 1999. It recommended that the best strategic option was a single treatment works to serve Bangor, Donaghadee and Millisle. The works was to have the flexibility to accommodate wastewater from part, or all, of Newtownards at a future date.
The recommendation was audited by an independent firm of GB-based consulting engineers who are acknowledged leaders in the public health field. Their audit confirmed that the provision of a single treatment works for the north Down and Ards area was the best option.
Fourteen possible sites were initially identified for the new works, including two of the three original sites close to Groomsport. Four were shortlisted, using detailed technical and environmental sifting criteria. Following further rigorous assessment, the two most suitable sites were identified. One is on the outskirts of Donaghadee, adjacent to the carpet factory. The other is halfway between Donaghadee and Newtownards, at Dead Man’s Island.
Detailed assessments have been made of the environmental impact that the proposed works would have on each site. The assessments have identified measures to mitigate those impacts. The Water Service recognises all too well the public’s negative image of wastewater treatment works. They are almost universally considered to be noisy, smelly and best avoided. That image is unfortunate. It is largely based on the public’s experience of older works, which are often overloaded. Modern works are designed to be good neighbours and to not cause a nuisance.
The Water Service has taken forward the selection and evaluation process in an open and informative way. Consultation has included meetings with, and presentations to, Ards Borough Council and North Down Borough Council; presentations to local Assembly Members; information leaflets issued to all local public representatives and delivered to all households within a two-kilometre radius of the two proposed sites; written consultations with a wide range of both statutory and non-statutory bodies; and meetings with, and presentations to, local interest groups.
My predecessor, Gregory Campbell, was anxious that there should be an awareness of what a truly modern wastewater treatment works looks like and how it operates. Last February he led a delegation of local public representatives, council officials and the press to visit two modern wastewater treatment works at Eastbourne and Little Hampton in Sussex. I understand that all were impressed by how a well-designed modern treatment works can be a good neighbour to the community and not cause any nuisance.
He also invited both councils to take part in a working group to review the site selection and appraisal procedure used by the Water Service and its consultants. The councils accepted the invitation, and the working group met on several occasions. Unfortunately, there was no agreement on how the review should be carried out, and it was not possible to reach any conclusions.
Since resuming ministerial office in October, I have been aware of the need to make progress on this matter, given the pressures that we are facing. I visited the two preferred sites and considered all the reports and appraisals that had been prepared on where the new works should be sited. Those included a detailed comparison of the merits of the two shortlisted sites. That comparator report recommended clearly that the site adjacent to the carpet factory was the more suitable, taking account of all environmental, technical and economic issues.
I am satisfied that the evaluation of the sites has been carried out in a comprehensive, impartial and professional manner. I am also fully satisfied that all relevant issues have been considered and evaluated. In addition, I have borne in mind the representations made by elected representatives and members of the local community about the siting of the works.
I have been particularly conscious of the strong representations from Ards Borough Council that the wastewater from Bangor should be treated in North Down Borough Council’s area and not transferred to the Ards area for treatment. I cannot accept that argument. It is not in line with past and current practice in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. There can be no justification, on technical or other grounds, for basing wastewater treatment on local government or Assembly constituency boundaries. A decision on the siting of any works must be made on the basis of environmental, technical and economic factors, taking account of the drainage needs of the area.
The two preferred sites are in Ards Borough Council’s area. They are also both in the North Down constituency, but I am not giving that as a reason for their selection. Having considered all the issues and the recommendation of the chief executive and board of the Water Service, I have decided that the new works should be located adjacent to the Donaghadee carpet factory.
Considerable care has been put into the design of the new works to take account of the concerns of local residents about its impact on their neighbourhood. A leaflet, which is available to Assembly Members, gives an illustration of the works and describes what will be involved in the project. It demonstrates the high quality design and care that will go into the construction of the works, which will be housed in an enclosed building. It will be designed to a high architectural standard and use the most modern technology available to minimise odour and noise levels. Sensitive landscaping will further enhance the appearance of the site. It is estimated that it will cost £35 million to build the new works and about £1·6 million to run it each year. Pumping stations will have to be built at Donaghadee, Millisle and Briggs Rock near Groomsport and will be mainly underground. The treated effluent will be discharged into the sea off Briggs Rock.
I referred earlier to the investment needs of the Water Service. The sum of £35 million is a very significant amount of money, and if we are to finance this from public expenditure, many other pressing projects will have to be deferred. We are, therefore, investigating whether it will be possible to use private finance to build and operate this and other new wastewater treatment works. However, it is likely to be some time before we can reach a decision on that. We will have to obtain planning approval from the Planning Service before we can start, and we expect to submit the planning application during April. The site is in private ownership, and initial land acquisition procedures will commence in the near future.
The planning approval, land acquisition and project procurement procedure will be complex and lengthy. Subject to satisfactory progress on all those fronts, I expect construction work to commence in 2005. It will take two years to build the new works.
In conclusion, I wish to stress that this decision was taken only after a lengthy and in-depth investigation and evaluation of options. Extensive consultation also took place with local public representatives, district councils and local residents. I am satisfied that the site selected is the most suitable. The new works will protect and enhance the marine environment. The site will benefit the local communities and make the entire area more attractive for tourists. It will also cater for new investment and growth in the area. Not least, it will enable us to meet our statutory obligations for wastewater treatment. The new works represent a significant investment in the area and reinforce my commitment to upgrading wastewater treatment facilities throughout Northern Ireland. They provide the public with the level of services and facilities that they rightly expect.

Mr Alban Maginness: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and thorough statement. I welcome his decision on the establishment of a wastewater works in north Down. As Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, I cannot express a view on the site, which the Minister has chosen after considerable advice and consultation. However, I welcome the Department’s attempt to remedy the continuing breach of the European Directive and the Regulations that govern wastewater treatment.
The Minister will present an application to the planning authorities in April. Can he tell the House whether that application will be subject to a public inquiry, or will it simply go through the ordinary planning process? In addition, I express my concern, which I presume is shared by the Committee, at the unavailability of the £35 million to finance the project. Can the Minister tell the House whether a private finance initiative or other private initiative has been found to fund the project?

Mr Peter Robinson: The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development is right to point to a general deficit in funding for water services. That is a matter that has exercised my officials considerably. A series of proposals to draw in private finance, which we wish to share with the Chairperson and the Committee, are at an advanced stage. Those proposals will assist us with our legal commitments through the European Union. The majority of sites that face infraction proceedings in the United Kingdom are in Northern Ireland, which is a matter of some concern. However, the Member will accept that, in many ways, it is the United Kingdom Government’s problem that the matter is on their own doorstep. It is because they did not provide the finance that we are facing the infraction proceedings.
The Member also raised the issue of the merits of a particular site. If the hon Gentleman wants to spend the next week or two reading about the site selection process in more detail, I will allow him to tear away from me the reading that I have had to do in the past few weeks. I hope that he will enjoy it more than I did. He will see that it was a most robust consideration, which took into account all the possible factors.
Planning will be a matter for the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service. It will determine whether a public inquiry is necessary. The Department for Regional Development will be happy to defend its case at a public hearing. We believe that the evidence is there to support the decision that the Department has reached.

Mr Alan McFarland: I wish to express some concern. The Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee and I were kindly given advance copies of the Minister’s statement last night. However, a copy had not been placed in my pigeonhole until about 10 minutes before the debate began. It is my understanding that statements should be available one hour before a debate begins.
Minister Campbell took the Committee for Regional Development to England to visit state-of-the-art wastewater treatment works. On the Committee’s return, there were discussions about the works, and my understanding was that additional sites in the area of Dead Man’s Island were being examined, because there was concern about, and opposition to, the carpet factory site in Donaghadee. How have we returned so rapidly to the carpet factory site when there was so much local feeling about it? Has there been consultation with local people, because the map and the photograph are not accurate? A housing development now comes out just to the right of the carpet factory. The wonderful map shows no housing anywhere near the factory site, and that is a great concern.
Will the Minister give his assurance that the state-of-the-art wastewater treatment works will not be the same as the private finance wastewater treatment works in Holywood, which has as strong an odour emanating from it as the previous treatment works had. The new works was supposed to prevent those odours. We could be heading for another problem if the wastewater treatment works is constructed in a built-up area beside houses and gives off as strong an odour as the treatment works in Holywood does.

Mr Peter Robinson: The last question asked by the Member was also answered by him. My Colleague Gregory Campbell took a delegation to see what a modern state-of-the-art wastewater treatment works can do, and how it can live with the local community. The Eastbourne wastewater treatment works is sited in a tourist area on the coast, but visitors to the area have to ask what it is, because there is no other signal, such as an odour, to indicate that it is a wastewater treatment works.
It may take quite a long time to answer the question of site selection procedure, but it is important for everyone that I do so. In the Department’s deliberations on where the wastewater treatment works should be sited, the potential catchment area had to be considered. That then became the search area, which was sizeable. Various parts of that area were sifted for planning criteria. For example, if a certain part was in an area of outstanding natural beauty, a special scientific area, an industrially zoned area or an urban area, it was sifted out. Another sifting took place in relation to height, and any area that was over 50 metres OD (ordnance datum) was taken out. That still left a large area, and a further sifting exercise took place, which reduced the potential location to 14 sites. Those sites were then examined individually and a matrix was constructed for scoring purposes. That process reduced the potential location to four sites. A more detailed investigation examined the full impact on each of those sites. A scoring mechanism was again employed, which reduced it to two sites.
I have reviewed the decision taken by the direct rule Minister with regard to the information that he would have had available to him, and I would not do anything differently. I am not saying that to wash my hands of the matter, but at that point devolution took place and the decision had to be made between Dead Man’s Island and the carpet factory site. That was the choice.
Both sites are in the Ards Borough Council area, and both are in the North Down constituency. I suspect that I shall be attacked by North Down Assembly Members and by Members who have responsibilities outside of the House as members of Ards Borough Council. That will come as a double whammy rather than save me from attack.
On nearly every heading on which the investigation took place between the two sites that were left during devolution, the carpet factory proved the better site. I ask the hon Member to look at the drawing of Donaghadee and tell me which factor has the greatest adverse impact on the environment and the local community. Given the existing features, there is no doubt that the carpet factory is more detrimental to the environment than the site that we propose to put there instead. As far as housing is concerned, I visited both the sites. The Dead Man’s Island site and its surrounds would have affected more houses directly and would have also affected jobs.
We shall never obtain the ideal site for a wastewater treatment works, as, by its nature, people are turned off by the proposition. However, the community needs a wastewater treatment works. If we do not start the process immediately, we shall almost certainly face infraction proceedings, as we are already outside the time limit. Those are the facts. Given the choice that was available, I have chosen on the basis of professional opinion.

Mr Jim Shannon: Although I welcome the necessary investment in infrastructure, £35 million is a substantial amount of money. Is the Minister aware of the deep- seated concern and high degree of consternation that has been generated? That concern is felt especially by those who live in Donaghadee, as well as by those on Ards Borough Council, of which I am a member, as are two other Members in the Chamber.
In the light of the announcement, and the very real concern that it has generated, is the Minister prepared to meet a deputation from Ards Borough Council, or, better still, to meet with the council, at his earliest convenience, so that outstanding matters of concern can be further examined and fully explored?

Mr Kieran McCarthy: The Minister would not be welcome.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Peter Robinson: We can see the rationality of some Ards Borough Council members in the Chamber.
I am aware of the main concern of people in Donaghadee and, indeed, of the council, as was my predecessor, who met with Ards Borough Council on the issue. I am happy to receive a deputation from the council, to go over the selection proceedings and to make my expert advisers available. Moreover, if Donaghadee has a residents’ group, I am happy to offer it the same advantage as some council officials and Members have had, by letting the group see what a modern wastewater treatment works is like. The residents’ group would then be better informed, even if it is only about the planning application case that it may wish to put forward. However, at least it will be better informed about what we are talking about, rather than having to judge it against other wastewater treatment works in the Province. I am happy to take those issues on board.
Even though I do not agree with the council’s approach, I understand the suggestion that wastewater treatment works should conform to local government boundaries. However, that is not a factor, and, with the review of administration, the North Down constituency and Ards Borough Council could even find themselves in the one area. Therefore, the issue would no longer be a problem for local government.
The bottom line is that the factors that led to the decision are of a professional nature, taking into account environmental, topographical and all other issues relating to planning. Those factors, rather than local government administrative boundaries, must be the key to a judgement on which site is appropriate.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. Far from attacking him, credit should be given to him and his predecessor for expediting this complex and sensitive process, which has taken some years.
The statement is almost as long as the process it outlines. Mr McFarland rightly said that the issue must be examined carefully. I would like to be objective about the matter, and, in a way, the Minister has pre-empted my question. The glossy leaflet is wonderful, but the Minister knows as well as I do that residents will not be taken in by it. They will be very concerned. Has the decision been made known to the residents directly affected? If not, when and how will it be made public? Many residents will be keen to obtain specific reasons for the decision. That would help in the subsequent planning process, because residents may seek a public inquiry. Although we are glad that the decision has been made, we are concerned that from the residents’ subjective viewpoint, it may not be the right one.

Mr Peter Robinson: I warmly welcome Mrs Bell’s opening remarks. I assure her that the purpose of the leaflet is not to deceive residents — it is to inform them. It is being widely distributed, and briefings are taking place so that full information is available to the local press. There will be a display in Donaghadee. Ards Borough Council has been asked to make premises available, but I do not know whether it has agreed yet. The Alliance Party Member for Strangford states that the council does not want residents to be informed, but I hope that the council will consider it important that residents be informed on these issues and will allow its facilities to be used.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome the announcement as a major step towards eliminating sewage pollution from the environment.
I note the Minister’s commitment to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities in paragraph 32 of the statement and his concern, in paragraph 6, about infraction proceedings by the EU in relation to many other towns in Northern Ireland. I note the comment in paragraph 15 on wastewater treatment works being designated as good neighbours and not causing a nuisance. Why then does the Minister continue to renege on the promised upgrading of the Newcastle treatment works? It has a direct impact on our tourist economy due to sea-water pollution and odour, which affect residents and tourists.

Mr Peter Robinson: Mr ONeill is tempting me to go beyond the statement. However, I know that you, Mr Speaker, would call me to order if I were to do so. I am content to meet with the hon Member at any time. If he wants to bring a deputation, we can deal with the matter in more detail. Today’s business, Members will agree, must focus on the North Down/Ards treatment works.

Mr Peter Weir: I join in the happiness expressed by Mrs Bell that we have an announcement at last. That will give some happiness to people in the Donaghadee area. However, I suspect that that is where their happiness will end.
I will deal with Mr McFarland’s point. Why was an out-of-date map included in the leaflet? Why was Dead Man’s Island not picked? It is sparsely populated compared with the much more congested Donaghadee area. Given that a large amount of growth is expected in the Newtownards area — approximately 7,000 houses are to be built in the next 10 years — and that more sewage will be pumped from there, why was a site at the far side of the peninsula chosen rather than Dead Man’s Island, which is closer to the centre of Newtownards? Unlike one of the Members for Strangford, I prefer that the fullest information be provided to the residents of Donaghadee. Can the Minister say what consultations his Department intends to arrange to explain to those residents what is being proposed for the town?

Mr Peter Robinson: The hon Member will see from the documentation that careful consideration was given to the sieving and scoring processes used to choose between the two sites. We used the best Ordnance Survey map available. Unless the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland updates its map, I cannot take the matter further. I visited the site, and anyone who visits it will see that choosing Dead Man’s Island would have had a much greater impact on residents and jobs.
The hon Member should not get the impression that the wastewater treatment works will be a bad neighbour. I do not know if he was part of the delegation that went to Eastbourne, but, if not, he might like to accompany some Donaghadee residents on the next visit. He will see how the treatment works fits into the area and that it is a good neighbour to those who live in houses in the Eastbourne catchment area.
When all the issues that must be considered for wastewater treatment works were considered for Dead Man’s Island and the site at the carpet factory, the latter emerged as the better site. I am not technically capable of making that sort of choice myself. I must rely on the experts available to me. They are not from the Water Service but are consultants with the relevant expertise. Their work was quality assured by GB experts who are the leaders in the field and who looked at the sites too. I cannot second guess people with experience and expertise in this.
If the hon Member is looking for more reading material, I can get him further and better particulars, and I can see he is enthusiastic about that. However, when he reads that material from a professional point of view, he will reach the same conclusion that I did. No site will be popular, and we made the right choice between the two available on technical and economic grounds.

Mr Joe Byrne: It is good that a comprehensive works to cover the three towns has been proposed. How constructive was the dialogue or consultation with Ards and North Down Borough Councils? It is crucial that councils be closely involved in any consultation process, particularly one that deals with the site of a wastewater treatment works. The Minister must agree that in my area Omagh District Council worked constructively with the Department to choose the optimum site.

Mr Peter Robinson: I suspect that I am not the first Minister to find that it is not always possible to get agreement between people with differing views. I can demonstrate that by saying that representatives from both Ards and North Down Councils went to Eastbourne. There was some unanimity in that each lot felt that the scheme was excellent and would have little impact on the other council’s area.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Unlike others, I do not welcome the Minister’s statement. This is a disaster for Donaghadee and the Ards Borough Council area. The diagram shows that the building works will be an absolute disaster; a carbuncle on the road beside the carpet factory and an absolute mess in a tourist area.
The Minister and others have welcomed the proposal in defiance of Ards Borough Council, of which I am a member, and which said, time and time again, that the area was not a proper site for a treatment works. The smaller diagram shows that the building of a pumping station has also been proposed. Long before the Minister became involved in this work, the people of Donaghadee and Ards borough fought tooth and nail to prevent the erection of any building adjacent to the marina in Donaghadee. They were totally and absolutely opposed to that.
I fully support the efforts of local Ministers. However, in this case the local Minister has got it wrong. He has not listened to Ards Borough Council. He has not listened to the community in Donaghadee. Ards Borough Council went to considerable expense to employ consultants to consider the 14 sites that he referred to in the document. The council was clearly critical of the sites which were proposed by the Department for Regional Development. Did the Minister consider Ards Borough Council’s consultants’ report when he was making his decision?

Mr Peter Robinson: Those last comments star among the most irrational. I ask any Member who has the diagram to which the hon Gentleman refers in front of him to look at what is proposed in it. The Member suggests that the wastewater treatment works proposed for Donaghadee will be an eyesore. Any person with an eye in his head will see that what is unsightly is not the wastewater treatment works, but the existing carpet factory. I have not heard anything from the Member about that. He turns reality on its head when he suggests that the works will be a carbuncle. Much of the building will be screened by banks and landscaping.
I take more account of what the people of Donaghadee say about the site-specific issues than I do of the approach taken by the hon Gentleman, who suggests that we should work within local government boundaries and that Ards Borough Council should not have a wastewater treatment works within its area. There is no rational reason for proceeding in that way. Millisle and Donaghadee, which will be served by the works, are both in Ards Borough Council’s area. North Down is a geographical area, but it is the topographical, environmental and drainage features of the whole catchment area that must be taken into account, not local government boundaries.
I suggest to the Member that if Ards Borough Council’s attitude is that it is wrong to have any Water Service provision coming from outside its area, there will not be much coming out of its water taps. According to the hon Gentleman, Ards Borough Council does not want wastewater from the Bangor area, but it is quite happy to get water from other parts of County Down, and that shows that declaring Unilateral declaration of independance (UDI) in Ards is not the answer.
This is not a decision that people in Donaghadee will welcome. However, the choice that arose when I entered office was between two sites, both of which are in Ards Borough Council’s area. I challenge the hon Gentleman to say whether, if Donaghadee is the wrong site, Dead Man’s Island is the right one? He says it is not. The Member therefore says that there should be no wastewater treatment works and that we should be at risk of infraction proceedings.
The conundrum is this: do we need a wastewater treatment works? The answer from everybody is clearly "Yes". Where will it be situated? The choice was between two sites, both of which were in the Ards Borough Council area. Professional advisers were unanimously, on almost every point of consideration, in favour of the site adjacent to the carpet factory at Donaghadee. People in Donaghadee may not like that answer, but their concerns will be considerably reduced if they fully realise what a modern, state-of-the-art, up-to-date wastewater treatment works means and how it performs as a good neighbour.

Mr Robert McCartney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are aware that I had indicated as an MLA for North Down, one of the affected areas, and as the former Member of Parliament for six years for North Down my intention of speaking. One of your Clerks informed me that you applied the convention that if a Member is not here when the Minister makes his statement he or she will be denied the opportunity to speak. I recognise the Minister’s difficulties and that the Nimby factor must be propitiated. Nevertheless, it has not helped to get people to support what has happened and has fed the conspiracist theory that seems to be endemic here that I received absolutely no notification — and I believe that is the situation of many other Members from North Down — of this statement’s being made.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has raised a point of order.

Mr Robert McCartney: I have not finished.

Mr Speaker: The Member has raised a point of order, and I will respond to the point of order, not to any politics that may be around in regard to it.
The position is this: for some time past, Members came in after Ministers had made their statements, asked to ask questions, not actually knowing what the Minister had said in the statement because they frequently had not read it; not knowing earlier questions that had been asked of Ministers. When they got their question they frequently walked out afterwards, not waiting to hear what anybody else had said. This was disrespectful to Ministers, disrespectful to the House and was regarded as unacceptable.
It was discussed on several occasions at the Business Committee, and the decision made by the Business Committee was as follows: that it would invite the Speaker to consider that those Members who were not present for the whole of a statement should not take priority over Members who were present for the whole of a statement. Members who were not present for any part of a statement should not be called to ask a question in regard to that statement. That I announced to the House before it was implemented, and I have attempted to implement it properly as the will of the House.
In regard to this statement may I say that from 8.30 this morning the advice that the statement was to be made was being scrolled on the monitors. The Minister requested that from 10.00 this morning the statement be put in the pigeonholes, and that was done. Of course, I accept that those Members who have chosen not to be represented on the Business Committee may not know that the Minister had advised the Business Committee last week that he wished to make a statement. However, I must say that one cannot have one’s cake and eat it. If one choses not to be present and chooses not to have representation at a Business Committee meeting, then one must accept that there will be some things that one may not be aware of as quickly as other Members. The fact is that the Minister was on his feet for some time; it was not the briefest of statements. Any Member who had come in at any point during the statement would have had an opportunity to ask a question.
If the Member is inviting me to treat one Member or some Members differently from other Members, then I am afraid it will fall on a deaf ear, because I am not prepared to treat any Members of this House differently from how I treat other Members. I will do my best to be as equal as I can to all — and as fair as I can to all.
In his point of order, the Member has made another point to the Minister, and it is for the Minister to decide whether he wishes to address that; not in the question here, because this was a point of order not a question on the statement, but it is for the Minister to decide how to handle what has clearly been a prickly and difficult question.

Mr Alan McFarland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification. My understanding is that if a Minister is to make a statement, it should be in Members’ pigeonholes one hour beforehand. I understand you to say it is half an hour. Is that the rule?

Mr Speaker: No, it is not half an hour. The position is that Ministers are requested to make statements available to the House as soon as is possible for them — and not after the time when they stand up to speak in the House. Some Ministers have made them available an hour before, some half an hour before, and some at the time of the statement. Some errant Ministers have even been found to do it after they speak, but that has quickly been addressed because it is a breach of Standing Orders. Some Ministers have made statements available longer in advance, but the requirements of Standing Orders are that they be made available not later than the time when the Minister stands up to speak. As far as I can understand and see, that was entirely fulfilled, both by the Minister in his request and by the staff who executed the request. I trust that that clarifies the matter for Members.

Mr Peter Robinson: We have now left the issue, but I am happy to meet with and hear the concerns of the Member for North Down.

Railway Safety Bill: Second Stage

Mr Peter Robinson: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Railway Safety Bill (NIA Bill 3/01) be agreed.
Legislation governing the railways goes back to the 1840s, and much of the legislation still in force today was in place by 1871. Although there have been additions, amendments and repeals, the basic legislation remains Victorian, both in content and concept. Its primary focus is on operation and not on safety. It is concerned mainly with the licensing and empowerment of railway operations. Railway legislation in Northern Ireland was recognised as outdated, but, for many years, the introduction of replacement legislation was not deemed of sufficiently high priority to attract the resources necessary to address it. Presumably it was felt that as railways were under the control of a responsible public sector body they would be operated in a safe manner, irrespective of the legislation’s shortcomings. In general, railways in Northern Ireland have had a good safety record. However, following three minor incidents in Northern Ireland in 1998, Northern Ireland Railways (NIR) commissioned a report on rail safety — the A D Little review. A key recommendation of the report, issued in March 2000, was that the legislation should be updated to meet the needs of twenty-first century rail travel in Northern Ireland.
Major rail traffic accidents in England, namely those at Southall, Paddington and, more recently, Hatfield, significantly contributed to a heightened public awareness of rail safety issues. Therefore, I decided to introduce new safety-focused legislation in Northern Ireland.
My objective is to provide a legislative basis for modern, safe travel by railways. The Bill will accomplish that primarily by applying existing health and safety at work legislation to railway operations. It will also introduce new powers to approve new infrastructure and rolling stock, to limit speeds and loads and to improve control over private crossings of railway lines.
Access to general powers in the Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 will also allow us to give effect to future EC Directives that relate to railway safety. Members will be aware that NIR is in the process of ordering 23 new trains, on the assumption that under that legislation the operational safety of that rolling stock must be approved by the Department for Regional Development before it can be introduced to services.
The application of the health and safety at work legislation will introduce the safety case regime for railways, following the Great Britain model. A safety case is a formal written document that includes information on the operator’s activities, organisation, safety management systems and safety measures. The control of railway safety in Great Britain has been criticised. However, no criticism has been directed at the safety case concept. All have related to the failure to implement the system properly. Many critics suggested that such failures were due in part to the fragmented nature of the railway industry in Great Britain. I assure Members that I have no plans to change the integrated nature of our much smaller industry.
The development of a safety case will be heavily dependent on risk assessment, which will identify areas of concern and importance and allow for the provision of detailed information on the extent of identified risks, their quantification and how they will be managed. Risk assessment will also determine any exemptions that may be granted; for example, to heritage operators on the basis of a clear statement of the risks that they face and how they will deal with them.
My officials will work closely with their counterparts in HM Railway Inspectorate (HMRI), which is an agency of the Health and Safety Executive in Great Britain, and the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland. I am glad to report that we have reached an agreement with the Health and Safety Executive whereby the experts in HMRI will act as agents of my Department to ensure that each risk assessment and safety case receives full and independent scrutiny before approval.
At present, the authorities in the Republic of Ireland work in adherence to the same nineteenth century legislation we observe. They are also introducing new railway safety legislation. To facilitate existing cross- border services, my Department is co-operating with the Department of Public Enterprise in Dublin to ensure that legislation in both jurisdictions is compatible. We must be satisfied with the safety of their trains that operate on our track and vice versa.
The Bill will also provide for my Department to make a series of Regulations to deal with private crossings, safety critical works, the approval of works, plant and equipment and safety cases. I intend to introduce most of those Regulations following public consultation as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law. However, the safety case Regulations will require railway operators to prepare, and obtain acceptance of, a detailed safety case before being allowed to operate, or, in most cases, to continue to operate.
The timing of the introduction of the Regulations must be agreed with Northern Ireland Railways (NIR). It will have a great deal of work to do on the preparation of audited safety cases for all its activities and operations. I assure Members that the Department will continue to urge NIR to complete that work as quickly as is necessary, to deal with the serious issues.
The Bill is largely technical, and its provisions are uncontroversial. My officials have met regularly with NIR, which will be directly affected by the legislation, and which has welcomed the proposals. Meetings have also been held with representatives of heritage operators, who come under the scope of the legislation.
The Bill will not result in substantial costs for NIR. Railway running costs will increase marginally, and, under the current subsidy arrangements, my Department will bear those costs out of resources allocated to it by the Assembly.
In addition to regular consultation with NIR and other local railway operators during the preparation of the Bill, my Department carried out a full public consultation. Last summer, some 600 organisations, interest groups and individuals were consulted. There were relatively few responses — 27 in total — and fewer than half of the comments raised substantive issues.
As a result of the consultation exercise, and at the request of NIR, I made one change to the Bill to improve safety at private crossings of railway lines. Schedule 1, which deals with signs and barriers at private crossings, has been added to the Bill.
In general, those who responded welcomed the Bill, and I trust that it will receive a similarly warm response from Members.

Mr Alban Maginness: I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Bill. As the Minister stated, the Railway Safety Bill is technical. Nonetheless, it is an important piece of legislation, and it has major safety implications for our railway network. Recent rail accidents in Great Britain, and none more so than the fatal accident at the weekend on the track at Sydenham, only serve to reinforce the need for exacting standards of railway safety in Northern Ireland.
I offer the Committee’s sympathy to the bereaved family of the construction worker and wish those who were injured a speedy recovery.
Although we have a small railway infrastructure — approximately 240 miles in total — it is critical that our safety standards be as rigorous as those in Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland and the rest of Europe. The legislation is timely. We are in the middle of the public consultation process on the regional transportation strategy. It is important that we provide adequate support for the public transport system, including the railway network. The legislation helps to reinforce the message that we are committed to improving the rail network, not simply by purchasing new trains, but through rigorous safety standards in which we can all have confidence.
The Regional Development Committee is looking forward to considering the legislation and examining in detail the clauses of the Bill. It is committed to conducting a detailed scrutiny, and it intends to consult widely and take evidence from all interested parties. This is the first piece of primary legislation that the Committee will have considered.
The Minister explained that the Bill makes provision for the introduction of secondary legislation on a range of railway safety issues. That is welcome, but was consideration given to drafting a single prescriptive Bill? That approach has been adopted in the Republic of Ireland, and it might be helpful to look at that model. Irrespective of that, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to introducing subordinate legislation that will include a public consultation process.
I am aware that the subordinate Regulations will be subject to negative resolution procedures, as prescribed by the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. If this is the case — and I hope that the Regional Development Committee will have the opportunity to consider this more closely during the Committee Stage of the Bill — I seek reassurance from the Minister that consultation on the Regulations will be rigorous and transparent.
I also hope that the Committee will be kept fully informed throughout each stage of the consultation process. I am sure that that will be the case, as the Department for Regional Development must be commended for the manner in which it has co-operated with, and assisted, the Committee with all secondary legislation to date.
To return to the Minister’s comments, I welcome the fact that the Minister recognises the importance of ensuring that all trains, including those of Iarnród Éireann, satisfy safety standards on Northern Ireland railways, and vice versa. We expect Northern Ireland safety standards to be at least comparable to those of Iarnród Éireann. Will the Minister reassure me that that is the case, and that he will continue to monitor standards in the future?
I welcome the Minister’s statement that he has no plans to change the integrated nature of the railways. In Northern Ireland we have an integrated public transport system, which ensures that we do not face the structural problems that have materialised in Great Britain following privatisation. The added difficulty of providing an integrated system when several competing operators are responsible for providing and maintaining the public transport network was particularly noticeable during the Regional Development Committee’s recent visit to Europe to look at best practice in public transport.
With the regional development transportation strategy nearing completion, we have the potential to create a much more integrated public transportation network. As the Minister explained, this Bill will require each railway operator to prepare a safety case. The Regional Development Committee looks forward to examining the content and nature of those safety cases in detail.
However, I seek clarification from the Minister on one specific point. In Great Britain, that same approach is already used, but problems arose because the system was not implemented properly. Can the Minister outline how similar problems will be avoided in Northern Ireland?
I am pleased that officials from the Department for Regional Development have reached an agreement with the Health and Safety Executive whereby HM Railway Inspectorate will act as agent to scrutinise and approve each risk assessment and safety case. I seek reassurance from the Minister that that process will be totally independent and that operators will have no right of appeal to the Department. Given that the basis of this legislation is the requirement for railway operators to provide safety cases, it is important that the safety case Regulations be swiftly implemented.
I note the Minister’s comments that the safety case Regulations will require Northern Ireland Railways, in particular, to undertake significant work before it prepares a detailed safety case. It is reassuring to note that the Department for Regional Development will be urging Northern Ireland Railways to complete this work as quickly as possible. However, does the Minister have any idea at this stage as to how long that preparatory work will take? Of course, the recent rail accident makes the Northern Ireland Railways safety case even more pressing, and the Regional Development Committee will lend whatever support it can to the speedy introduction of the safety case Regulations.

Mr Alan McFarland: I welcome the Railway Safety Bill. As Members are aware, it is a result of the A D Little report and the work of the Railways Task Force, which identified several fairly serious safety issues in the railway system in Northern Ireland. I am glad that the Department is starting to address those issues.
However, I wonder why we have not taken this opportunity to completely re-examine the legislation. I understand that this Bill tinkers with the existing legislation, rather than taking a completely fresh view of it. In the Republic, the opportunity was taken to completely re-examine the relevant legislation, and some fairly new elements were introduced to it.
As I understand it, Translink has expressed concern about elements of the Bill. The Department has indicated that it will deal with those elements through Regulations. However, I suspect that when the Committee gets the opportunity to examine them in more detail, it may want to introduce proper amendments to the primary legislation as it goes through, rather than rely on Regulations to cover those points.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I too welcome the Railway Safety Bill, not only as an Assembly Member, but also as a part-time and regular commuter on the railways. It has always been a real concern for passengers, staff and management that safety has been undermined by low-grade material, both on the lines and in the rolling stock. In the light of the A D Little report, as Mr McFarland said, we hoped that legislation would be introduced to address that — hence this Bill.
We must quickly eradicate all concerns by upgrading the railways after the long years of insufficient attention. I am more than pleased that the Bill is focused on safety, but, like the Committee Chairperson, I would like more information on the secondary legislation. I am not a member of that Committee, but I am sure we will be able to have access to the information.
We are lucky that we have not had the major disasters that have happened in England and in other places. According to the explanatory and financial memorandum, safety cases serve two main purposes:
"to give confidence that the operator has the ability, commitment and resources to properly assess and effectively control risk to the health and safety of staff and the general public: and
to provide comprehensive working documents to provide evidence that the accepted risk control measures and safety management systems have been properly put into place, and continue to operate in the way they were intended."
Those are both worthy and necessary.
The Bangor to Belfast railway line is one of the most successful projects. However, you would be surprised at the state of the line. Travelling at speed is unsafe, and one of the recent accidents was caused by a train travelling at speed on a deficient part of the line. The carriages are not ideal. The old carriages, which are being replaced as quickly as possible, have unsafe doors. Some of the new carriages also have unsafe doors. Although the doors are deemed to be automatic, they do not always open. The windows in the older carriages are dreadful. The issue of alighting from both types of carriage at stations must be examined. Those are small but important safety measures, and they must be addressed. It is hoped that running and enforcement costs will be met.
Our railway safety record is good, but it should not make us complacent. It is to be hoped that the general concerns will be addressed, and that health and safety at work; new trains; new rolling stock; and signs and barriers at private crossings will be upgraded to twenty- first century standards. We need to keep our railways. I, therefore, support the Bill, and I hope it will be implemented quickly.
In conclusion, I want to take this opportunity to convey my sympathy and that of my party to the family of the young construction worker who died, and to the others who were injured, during the improvement of the Belfast to Bangor railway line.

Mr Joe Byrne: I too welcome the debate, and I commend the Minister on his recent announcement of an £80 million investment in Northern Ireland Railways to purchase modern rolling stock to replace the existing stock, some of which has been in use for the past 30 years. The Department and the Minister have made a significant start to the modernisation of the Northern Ireland rail network, as proposed in the draft regional transportation strategy. That network has suffered considerably from critical underinvestment during the 30 years of direct rule.
Rail safety is central to the modernisation of Northern Ireland’s rail network, and it has an important bearing on the successful implementation of the Department’s regional transportation strategy. If we are to increase the use of the railways, then the level of public confidence in the network must be raised, particularly given the prospect of the utilisation of private sector investment. People must be reassured that the network is efficient, safe and comfortable, and that all procedures are transparent. I am thankful that Northern Ireland has not experienced rail accidents on the scale of those in Britain, which involved such tragic loss of life, and which prompted the debate on rail safety. There is already a high degree of safety awareness in Northern Ireland Railways. However, the Bill provides us with the opportunity to introduce standardised safety reporting mechanisms.
The Railway Safety Bill does not address many of the safety issues. At this stage it cannot be regarded as a comprehensive piece of legislation that will safeguard passengers and Northern Ireland Railways staff with the necessary statutory safety mechanisms. Translink and Transport 2000 have reservations relating to the legislation, and they have legitimately highlighted shortcomings on key safety issues. Translink and Transport 2000 have used the A D Little report and Lord Cullen’s report as benchmarks to judge the contents of the Bill, and the Assembly must do the same.
The A D Little review, with its specific focus on Northern Ireland, conducted a rigorous analysis of rail safety, separating the issue into four main components — safety management assessment, technical assessment, risk assessment and safety culture assessment.
Under these four headings, the report examined a range of competencies and practices within Northern Ireland Railways. It made eight key recommendations with regard to safety management, safety culture, operations, track, signalling, level crossings, structures and so forth, based on shortfalls in the rail network.
Some of those recommendations are reflected in the clauses of the Bill, but many are not addressed. Translink and Transport 2000 have pointed out that this piece of legislation can be viewed only as a framework that must be built on. For example, there is no mention of a safety audit, and there is no proposal for the establishment of standards and how they are to be monitored. Furthermore, the draft Bill does not outline the proposed role of HM Railway Inspectorate, nor does it address safety concerns with regard to the employment of subcontractors or licences for drivers and signalmen.
I also wish to convey my condolences to the family of the man who was killed at the weekend on the Sydenham section of the railway.
Although the Bill is a step in the right direction, there is room for further amendments that would improve the Bill and make it more comprehensive. I also urge the Department for Regional Development to examine the safety legislation in the Republic. Translink have commented on the more substantive nature of railway safety legislation in the South, which provides a regulatory code as opposed to the mere framework proposed in the Bill. The Bill should take greater account of legislation in the Republic, so that we can have, as far as possible, greater co-ordination and consistency of services between Northern Ireland Railways and Iarnród Éireann. I welcome the Minister’s comments regarding this matter.
Although I appreciate the Department’s intention to address those shortcomings, there is an obvious need for further consideration of the Bill’s provision, so that it reflects more fully the recommendations by Lord Cullen and the A D Little report and incorporates the best elements of rail safety in Britain and the Republic. I look forward to addressing those issues during the Bill’s Committee Stage, along with my Colleagues in the Committee for Regional Development.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am grateful to Members for their constructive contributions to the debate, the brevity of which perhaps indicates the non-controversial nature of the legislation. The Assembly and members of the Committee are eager to have safety legislation of the kind that is proposed on the statute book, in order to provide a higher standard of safety for rail users.
Several Members referred to the tragic loss of a young construction worker at the weekend. I wish to express my sympathy to the family of the deceased and express my best wishes for a speedy recovery to the injured workman. I understand that the accident came about when engineering equipment, operated by the construction firm Mowlem’s, collided on the track with a stationary piece of equipment owned by Northern Ireland Railways but leased to the firm. This occurred at 4.00 am on Sunday morning. The track had been handed over to Mowlem’s on Friday evening to allow full access for workers at the weekend. No services operated over the weekend. Under the terms of their contract, Mowlem’s is responsible for the line during the period that control is handed to the firm, and, as part of the contract, Mowlem’s submitted a safety plan covering all aspects of its operation.
The accident remains under investigation, and we must await the outcome before drawing any conclusions. The investigation will focus on the cause of the accident and how it was not prevented by the safety plan that was put forward by the firm. The system is similar to that which will operate under the safety case regime. However, the Northern Ireland Railways safety case, when it is brought into operation, will not cover this type of situation directly. When external contractors are employed, it is their responsibility to operate a safety plan. I have no doubt that the Assembly, and certainly the Committee, will await the outcome of the investigation and will want to consider the matter more fully at that stage.
In his remarks the Committee Chairperson asked if the Department had considered having a single prescriptive Bill. He rightly recognises that this is an enabling Bill, which will empower the Department to introduce a series of subordinate Regulations that will set out the detailed legislative requirements. The subordinate legislation will be largely technical in nature, and none of its contents is likely to prove controversial. It is a long-standing practice that such matters are dealt with in subordinate legislation. For example, that is the approach adopted by the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.
There is one particular reason why it is more appropriate to leave the detailed legislation to Regulations made under the Act. We obtained agreement to proceed to this draft Bill in January 2001. Due largely to the need to carry out a formal consultation process, it was not introduced to the Assembly until this month. It is by no means certain that it will be enacted by the summer. Primary legislation is a time-consuming process, and I would not like changes in the legislation that had the potential to improve railway safety to be delayed for the 18 months or so that primary legislation could take. Such amendments could arise from Lord Cullen’s report on railway safety and could be introduced much more speedily by subordinate legislation.
My Department will consult on each set of subordinate Regulations, including the amending regulations as they are made. All interested parties will be consulted, and the Assembly Committee — whose role we find crucial — will be able to scrutinise the Regulations in its usual thorough way. I am not proposing a general public consultation on each set of Regulations. When consulting on this Bill, we received only about a dozen substantive responses from the 600 consultees. That showed that the general public are not that interested in the technicalities of railway safety. They are interested in being assured that rail travel is safe, and that is paramount to us all.
The Chairperson also raised the issue of cross-border enforcement. As I said in my opening remarks, it will be necessary for us to be satisfied about the safety of Irish Rail trains operating on Northern Ireland Railways track. Of course, Irish Rail will be no less eager to ensure the safety of Northern Ireland Railways trains operating on its track. That can be accomplished by mutual recognition of safety certification in accordance with EU legislation.
The Chairperson also asked about the possible timescales for legislation under the Bill. I hope that the Bill will complete its Assembly stages by June or July 2002. Following Royal Assent, it should become law by October or November. Most subordinate legislation will follow almost immediately, subject to public consultation and consultation with the Assembly Committee. The railway (safety case) Regulations will follow as soon as possible, allowing Northern Ireland Railways time to finalise its safety case and have it thoroughly examined.
The Chairperson also raised the issue of the problems encountered in Great Britain due to failure to comply fully with the implementation of the safety case requirements. The safety case system requires independent validation of a case before acceptance and annual auditing of performance. Those will be rigorously enforced. The system provides strong assurances that rail travel will be safe, though I must emphasise that no system can provide absolute certainty in such a complex area.
The Deputy Chairperson asked why we had not gone for completely new legislation. This is, of course, a completely new piece of legislation. It is a new railway regime and does not amend any existing enactment.
I recently visited Jordanstown and spoke with staff and police at the halt and looked at the crossing. The policeman in attendance opened his file to me, and it showed, in the most graphic way, what a railway accident means. That brought home to me the vital importance of safety. We are dealing with very heavy vehicles going at considerable speeds. It is easy to understand the dangers involved, particularly at crossings.
It is incumbent on all elected representatives, and on all of us with responsibility, to ensure that when legislation is introduced, proper procedures are enacted. The responsibility does not stop with me. The Committee and the House have a role. This step that we are taking will considerably add to the safety requirements and ensure that there is a proper focus on safety issues in the railway system in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the comments of Members and look forward to the continuing contact that we will have with the Committee as the legislation moves to the next stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Railway Safety Bill (NIA Bill 3/01) be agreed.

Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. I therefore propose, by leave of the House, to group the eight clauses of the Bill, followed by the schedule and the long title.
Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Local Government (Best Value) Bill: Final Stage

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: I beg to move
That the Local Government (Best Value) Bill (NIA Bill 19/00) do now pass.
As Members will know, the Local Government (Best Value) Bill has two main objectives: first, to repeal the existing provision for compulsory competitive tendering of specified council services; and, secondly, to establish a general duty on district councils to make arrangements for continuous improvement in the delivery of their services, having regard to what is tritely called VFM (value for money), namely economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Most importantly, they will also be required to consult local people on this matter. That is the essence of the Bill.
I thank the Chairperson and members of the Environment Committee for their frank and open views, which have helped to determine the provisions of the Bill. I also extend my thanks to the Members who participated in the debate at Consideration Stage. Officials in the Department have worked closely with district councils and other local government interests to ensure that best value is implemented in a structured way. I endorse that approach and agree entirely with my predecessor, Sam Foster, that such a partnership arrangement should continue in the months ahead.
Finally, there is still much work for local government officials to do in respect of best value developments. Reviews of best value are presently under way in England and Wales. The outcome of those reviews, and the progress on best value legislation in Scotland, may help to inform the process of developing best value and guiding local government in Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Local Government (Best Value) Bill (NIA Bill 19/00) do now pass.

Budget Bill: Final Stage

Resolved (with cross-community support):
That the Final Stage of the Budget Bill (NIA Bill 2/01) do now pass. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Dr Farren).]

Committee Business:

Assembly: Committee of the Centre

Resolved:
That Mr Barry McElduff replace Ms Michelle Gildernew as a member of the Committee of the Centre. — [Mr C Murphy.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Morrow’s Colleagues have advised me that he has unfortunately been unable to get to the House this morning. Therefore the next motion must fall. I have no doubt that the matter will be brought back at a later stage.

Review of the Legislative Process

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the findings contained in the First Report of the Committee on Procedures: ‘Review of the Legislative Process in the Northern Ireland Assembly’ (Report 01/01R) and endorses the recommendations contained therein.
A Cheann Comhairle, as Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures I am pleased to bring the report to the Assembly’s attention. This is the first report by the Committee on Procedures, and it details the Committee’s findings of its inquiry into the progression of legislation, which is a fundamental function of the Assembly. I shall begin by explaining briefly why the Committee decided to undertake the inquiry, and then look at how it was conducted. I will then outline some of the key findings and recommendations.
The impetus for the review was provided by the Committee’s concern that the initial procedures for the progression of legislation were not as effective as they should be. For example, Standing Orders provided only for a single amendment stage. That is considerably less than the procedures in other legislatures. The Committee decided in October 2000, therefore, to initiate a review of the procedures.
The Committee began its review by seeking evidence from a wide range of organisations and individuals. On behalf of the Committee, I extend our gratitude to those organisations and individuals who took the time to respond in detail to our request. I also thank the Assembly’s legal adviser, the examiner of statutory rules and the Assembly research services for their assistance to the Committee in its deliberations. The research service provided an excellent paper, which highlighted practices in several other places. Although one has to be careful in drawing comparisons, particularly considering our unique political system, the research was extremely useful in helping the Committee get a feel for what could be introduced here.
The Committee built on that knowledge by visiting the Scottish Parliament and the Dáil. The Committee also took the innovative step of establishing a subcommittee to undertake the evidence sessions of the inquiry and to prepare a draft report for the full Committee’s consideration.
I will now outline some of the key recommendations contained in the report. Before doing so it will be useful to inform Members of some of the main findings of our research, as they underpin our recommendations. My Colleagues on the Committee will address some of the other recommendations. I wish to point out that all the parties represented on the Committee agreed the recommendations in the report.
Members should note that we are in our infancy as a legislature as regards the progression of legislation, in comparison to the Oireachtas or Westminster. From devolution until the end of the 2001 session, 21 Bills progressed through the Assembly. Of those 21 Bills, 17 went through Committee Stage. What is more striking, however, is that eight of the 17 were considered by the Committee for Finance and Personnel.
This means that the majority of Committees have had limited experience of taking the Committee Stages of Bills, and a couple have yet to take one. The upshot is that Statutory Committees, in their submissions to this review, were limited in what they saw as the need for improvement.
However, the need to lengthen the Committee Stage from its present 30-calendar-day limit was common to all submissions. The Committee found that, to the end of the 2001 session, the average length of Committee Stages was nine weeks, which is substantially more than 30 days.
Another key finding of our research was that the pre-legislative consultation between Departments and Committees was not as thorough as it should have been. The Committee found that, on almost half the Bills that went through Committee Stage, there was no pre-legislative consultation, although this may be explained by the fact that a number of Bills were introduced in the immediate aftermath of devolution.
There is evidence that in most instances the level of pre-legislative scrutiny with Committees is improving. However, it is still disappointing to note that at the end of the last session no Department had submitted a draft Bill for Committee consideration as part of its pre-legislative consultation. This point about pre-legislative scrutiny is important, and I will come back to it later. It is at the core of our recommendations.
Another key finding of the Committee was in relation to human rights and legislation. The Committee found that, to the end of the last session, the Assembly had not considered it necessary to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements as provided for in Standing Order 33, nor had it found it necessary to formally refer a Bill to the Human Rights Commission.
I have outlined some of the key findings, and now I would like to turn to the recommendations. The first, and perhaps the most far-reaching, of the Committee’s recommendations pertains to pre-legislative consultation. The need for pre-legislative scrutiny is emphasised in the other legislatures that we examined and in the guidance for progressing legislation issued to Departments by the Executive.
One of the key recommendations in a recent memorandum from the Modernisation Committee at Westminster was that Ministers should make greater use of draft Bills as part of their pre-legislative consultation. Our recommendation concurs fully with that. However, rather than incorporating it into Standing Orders at this stage, and in order to give the Executive time to introduce it, the Committee advises that the recommendation be incorporated into the protocol on information and evidence which is to be agreed between the Executive and the Assembly.
The Committee recommends that this practice be reviewed after 12 months. If it has not been implemented to a satisfactory level, the Committee will look at it again with a view to making it a requirement under Standing Orders. I cannot overemphasise the importance of this recommendation, because it underpins the rest of the Committee’s report.
The Committee is firmly of the view that if Ministers and Committees thrash out their concerns on proposed legislation before it enters the Assembly, this is likely to lead to quicker and less contentious passage through the Assembly. While the Committee acknowledges that for a variety of reasons this will not be applicable to all types of legislation — for example, Budget Bills — it should apply to the majority of proposed legislation.
Another important recommendation centres on the minimum time between each stage of the legislative process. Currently that period is five working days. However, immediately after devolution it was seven working days; it was only later reduced to five. In its submission to the review, the Executive recommended that this should be further reduced to four working days. Their argument was that it would allow Stages of a Bill to be considered in consecutive weeks. Under current sitting arrangements, if a Consideration Stage is held on a Tuesday, then the Further Consideration Stage cannot be held until the following Monday week, which is some eight working days later. The Executive contended that this unduly delays the process.
As part of its consideration of the proposal the Committee looked at the practice in other legislatures, particularly in Scotland, where there is usually a minimum of two weeks between the Stages of a Bill. The Committee also noted that if the period between Stages were reduced, less time would be available for Members or Committees to table amendments to a Bill. The Committee believes that this is an important consideration, particularly where the Bill is complex or contentious. The Committee acknowledges that as the legislative programme increases, we may have to revisit this issue with a view to increasing the number of days, perhaps reverting to the original seven days.
However, the Committee agreed that the time period between the Second Stage and Committee Stage could be removed. At present, when a Bill passes its Second Stage it is referred to a Committee to report on it. The Committee cannot consider the Bill until five days have elapsed, yet the 30-day period within which a Committee has to report starts the day after the Second Stage is completed.
Therefore Committees have to report within 25 days. Several Committees highlighted this difficulty in their submissions and recommended that the time period be removed. The Committee on Procedures shares this view and recommends that the five-day rule be removed from Standing Orders.
It is not surprising that Committees think that the 30-day period does not allow sufficient time for adequate scrutiny of legislation. The Committee on Procedures found that the average length of the Committee Stage was nine weeks — more than twice the length of time provided for in Standing Orders. Several recommendations were made to the Committee as regards how long Committee Stage should be: some want 90 days; others want 60. The Committee again looked at practice elsewhere and noticed that time limits were generally not set for the Committee Stage of a Bill in other legislatures. The Committee found it telling that when visiting the Dáil to view the Committee Stage of a Bill there, it had been under consideration for nearly a year.
We examined what Assembly Committees were doing at Committee stage, and why that work was taking longer than the 30-day period set out in Standing Orders. The Committee noted that other time restrictions considerably shortened the period. One of these, which I have already referred to, is the five-day period between Second Stage and Committee Stage, which reduces the overall period to 25 days. Printing a report can take more than a week. The net result is a Committee period lasting about 20 days. Faced with this reality, Committees automatically feel that they need an extension of the Committee Stage. Under the arrangements for tabling motions, a request for extension has to be tabled at an early stage in the period.
Having considered the administrative arrangements alongside the views expressed in the Committees’ submissions, the Committee on Procedures agreed that the length of the Committee Stage must be changed. An important consideration when determining how long the Committee Stage should be was our view that the submission of a draft Bill as part of the legislative consultation should become the norm. If that were to happen, less time would be required at Committee Stage. The Committee felt that 30 working days would be more appropriate. In effect this would give Committees six weeks to consider a Bill. When this period is set alongside the existing administrative arrangements for calculating the 30-day period, this is a more realistic timescale.
The Committee considered whether Committees should be given the power to amend a Bill. As Members know, Committees cannot amend a Bill during Committee Stage. Committees are required to report on the Bill to the Assembly. If it so wishes, a Committee can table amendments at Consideration Stage. Again, drawing from the work of other legislatures, we noted that their Committees had the power to amend Bills during Committee Stage. The legislature would then have an opportunity to consider the amended Bill at what they called "Report Stage."
The Committee on Procedures asked representatives from OFMDFM for their views on the matter. Although they advised us that the Executive had not taken a view, they thought that Committees could not legally be given power to amend a Bill. This view contrasted with advice from the Assembly legal adviser, who suggested they could. The Committee requested legal opinion from OFMDFM, but it has yet to respond.
During its discussions the Committee recognised some of the historical reasons why Committees should not be given such a power. Most notable was the concern that a Committee could amend a Bill at Committee Stage in a way which might not reflect the wishes of the Assembly, and might be difficult to undo at Consideration Stage. However, the Committee on Procedures considered it strange that Committees could initiate legislation, yet could not amend it.
There was some support from members of the Committee on Procedures who recommended that such powers be given to Statutory Committees and the Committee of the Centre. However, the overriding factor was the view of the Statutory Committees themselves: there is no demand from them to be given such authority. Given my earlier comments about the relative inexperience of Committees in this area of work, perhaps this is not surprising.
Another factor that explains why the Committee on Procedures is not recommending such a change is the recognition that any such change would have massive procedural implications, particularly for the role of the Minister at Committee Stage. It would also have knock- on effects on the purpose of Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. Therefore the Committee recognised that before it could recommend changes to Standing Orders it would have to undertake detailed consultation with the Executive and Committees. This is an important issue and one that will come to the fore again as Committees get more experience in the legislative process.
There has been some debate about accelerated passage in the House. The current procedure that allows Bills to progress through the Assembly in 10 days is normally used for Budget Bills, and Standing Orders refer specifically to this.
At present, the requirement for accelerated passage is the leave of the House. The Executive recommended that the use of accelerated passage should be reduced. In its consideration of the matter the Committee reviewed the existing provisions of Standing Order 40, which require a Minister to explain to the House the reason for a delay and the action he or she has taken to avoid having to use accelerated passage in future. The infrequent use of the procedure convinced the Committee that it was unlikely that the accelerated passage provision would be further misused. The Committee considered that the requirement for leave was unnecessarily high when set against other major decisions of the Assembly, which have a lower threshold. Therefore the Committee recommends that the requirement be reduced from leave of the House to cross-community support.
I will now move to the Committee’s consideration of the human rights aspects of the legislative process. The Human Rights Commission gave a detailed submission to the Committee and made some proposals for changes to Standing Orders. The main thrust of the Human Rights Commission’s submission was that the current legislative procedures in the Assembly are not sufficiently robust with regard to human rights scrutiny. The commission recommended that a new committee on human rights and equality be established to examine and report on all human rights and equality issues coming within the competence of the Assembly. That would include compatibility with relevant human rights standards. It was proposed that the committee should replace the current Ad Hoc Special Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements and that one of its key functions should be the scrutiny of all Bills before they proceed to Royal Assent to ensure that they comply with human rights and equality standards.
In its consideration of this, the Procedures Committee took evidence from Prof Stephen Livingstone, head of the School of Law at Queen’s University, and Brice Dickson of the Human Rights Commission. The Committee also received advice from the Assembly’s legal adviser.
In its analysis, the Committee broke down the key recommendations of the commission. It decided that a new committee on human rights, with a broad mandate to investigate human rights issues, would not come within the remit of an inquiry on the legislative process, so the Committee focused its consideration on a proposal for a new committee which, in simple terms, would clear all legislation before it proceeded to Royal Assent. On that, the Committee examined the existing procedures to identify the checks carried out for human rights scrutiny and was encouraged by the level of such scrutiny on proposed legislation. That information is given on page 16 of the report. We noted that at each stage of the legislative process there are checks and balances to ensure that legislation complies with human rights standard. It was clear that the Human Rights Commission was not aware of how far these checks go.
We also considered the Committees’ current scrutiny role of proposed legislation. As Members will appreciate, Committees play an extremely important part in the Assembly’s commitment to human rights proofing of draft legislation. That can happen at any stage of the process, but particularly at both the pre-legislative stage and at Committee Stage where questions can be raised with the Minister about the human rights implications of a Bill. Indeed, on a number of occasions, Committees have asked the Human Rights Commission to give evidence during a Committee Stage on the human rights implications of a Bill. That led the Procedures Committee to conclude that the commission had, in some way, underemphasised the important role that Committees have played in the process. The Committee also agreed that, in fulfilling the role set out in the Good Friday Agreement for scrutinising legislation, it was important that Committees should continue to consider all implications of a Bill, including their impact on human rights. The Procedures Committee was concerned that if this responsibility were passed to one Committee alone, human rights could become marginalized. It is not easy to pick out a provision of a Bill and ask that it be considered in isolation. The overall content of the Bill has to be taken into account, so there is a concern about referring a whole Bill to a human rights committee for scrutiny. In addition, with reference to the Committee’s first recommendation about pre-legislative scrutiny, it would be impractical at that stage to refer matters to a new human rights committee.
It is for these reasons that the Committee does not agree with the Human Rights Commission’s proposal for a separate human rights committee to consider all legislation, and a human rights committee with a general remit for inquiry is an issue for further debate in the Assembly.
I will turn now to look at the Further Consideration Stage. At present, Further Consideration Stage is a re-run of Consideration Stage. In their submission, the Executive suggested that this was unnecessary and that the plenary Assembly should not be asked to vote again on an issue that had been voted through, perhaps the previous week. While the Committee considered it important that Members should have a second opportunity to amend a Bill, it agreed that there would be benefit in refining.
The Committee agreed with the Executive that the Assembly should not be asked to vote again on clauses or schedules that have already been voted to stand part of a Bill. The Committee recommends that Standing Orders be changed to amend the Further Consideration Stage so that debate and vote at that stage would be limited only to any amendments tabled. The Assembly would not be asked to vote that clauses or schedules stand part of the Bill.
I remind Members of what I said at the start of this debate. The Assembly is in its infancy as regards progressing legislation. Therefore its procedures should be subject to continuous review. Many issues will require further consideration in the future — for example, Committees amending Bills. There are other issues, which we have not touched upon yet, such as Private Member’s Bills, Committee Bills and Private Bills. As yet we have no experience to judge the efficiency of our procedures on those issues. However, I assure the Assembly that we will examine them.

Mr Fred Cobain: I congratulate the Committee on Procedures for examining this highly complex issue. It is right that our procedures should be subject to regular review. We are learning all the time, and we need to be able to make adjustments to the way in which we do business. The review undertaken by the Committee on Procedures is particularly important to the Social Development Committee.
The main issues considered by the Committee on Procedures, listed in paragraph 2.2.1 on page 5 of the report, go to the heart of the way in which legislation is handled in the House, and they should be of interest to everyone.
I am confident that members of the Social Development Committee will welcome recommendation 4.7 of the report, which states that
"as part of the pre-introductory consultation on proposed legislation, Ministers should submit a draft of the Bill for Committee consideration".
That recommendation speaks for itself. Statutory Committees have scrutiny, policy development and consultation roles, and they undertake the Committee Stage of relevant primary legislation. It is therefore entirely sensible that they should be involved with legislative proposals as early as possible.
I am even more confident that the Social Development Committee will welcome the recommendations in paragraph 2.5.3, which calls for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to present to the Committee on Procedures
"a new procedure for the progression of parity legislation".
That issue exercises the Social Development Committee greatly in respect of both primary and subordinate legislation.
The Social Development Committee has been faced with two recent examples of so-called parity legislation, which have been handled in completely different ways. First, the House was told that the Social Security Fraud Bill was parity legislation, and it accepted that statement. It did so, because, although social security is a devolved matter, it is important to maintain parity with the rest of Great Britain. Therefore a Social Security Fraud Bill which mirrored the GB provisions was brought before the House.
The Bill was denied accelerated passage and, as a result, was subject to scrutiny at the Committee Stage. We were told of the desperate financial implications of going our own way on social security matters. We were warned that we would have to find moneys from the Northern Ireland block grant, and that we would have to set up a separate, expensive, local social security computer system. Those warnings were used as justification for maintaining the parity principle. Some people described it as
"what is good for the people of Birmingham, is good for the people of Belfast. What is good for the people of Liverpool is good for the people of Londonderry."
Have we ever been given a definition of parity? Neither the Social Development Committee nor I believe that we have. I submit that the Committee and the House need a clear definition of parity.
The second example relates to the programme of welfare reform which is being pursued by the Government in Westminster. Last year they published proposals for a Tax Credit Bill. We were told that the reforms applied across the United Kingdom. We were told that it was a matter of parity.
However, because taxation is not a devolved matter, the provisions that relate to Northern Ireland were contained in a Westminster Bill. They were not subject to scrutiny by the Assembly.
Other issues must be resolved. The Minister for Social Development recently told the Committee that he intends to bring a housing support Bill to the Assembly soon. The Bill has its origins in legislative reform generated at Westminster. Is it parity legislation? The Committee has also become aware of two other pieces of primary legislation to deal with social security and state pensions, which presumably come under welfare reform. Are they parity Bills? What are the chances that the case will be made for accelerated passage for those Bills, despite the Assembly being told that accelerated passage should be used only in exceptional circumstances? Is it right that Standing Order 40 provides the opportunity for accelerated passage?
I do not share the confidence of the Committee on Procedures that, if the requirement of unanimity is reduced to cross-community support, the procedures will not be abused. There will be circumstances in which someone may seek to abuse that facility, while arguing forcibly that that is not the case. Perhaps parity will be central to that argument.
Accelerated passage and the welfare reform Bills might be the best way to proceed. The Assembly has little choice but to accept the arguments for a single system. That may be because of the threat that exists to the Northern Ireland block grant; because of the cost of introducing a separate computer system; or because people in Belfast should be treated the same as people in Birmingham.
When those arguments are considered, they eventually come full circle and return to the vexed question of the effect that it may have on the block grant. The outcome may prove to be a combination of all three scenarios. A paper on parity would be welcome — especially were it to offer a full and clear definition of parity. Proposals on how to deal differently with parity legislation would also be welcome, especially if the Committee on Procedures examined it carefully in order to ensure protection of the rights and responsibilities of the House, and that the House and its Committees do the job that they are required to do under the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
If the Assembly is sincere about its responsibilities to the electorate, that issue must be sorted out once and for all. However, it must be done carefully. I contend that where it is clear that Northern Ireland will be legislated for by Westminster, especially in situations in which powers have been devolved, there is a case for procedure to be put in place. That procedure should enable the relevant Secretary of State to consult formally with the Statutory Committees at an appropriate time. Moreover, the procedure should ensure that the Assembly’s input is acknowledged and valued.
I welcome the acknowledgement that Committee Stage invariably takes longer than is currently provided for in Standing Orders. In my usual spirit of helpfulness, I wonder if the Committee might consider an alternative amendment to Standing Orders, which would provide for the length of Committee Stage to be determined by the House when a Bill is first introduced. I should have thought that, given the pre-introductory consultation stage envisaged and proposed by the Committee on Procedures, and knowing the size and potential for controversy of any Bill, it would be possible for the Committee to indicate, perhaps at First Stage, how long might be needed to conclude Committee Stage. That might help the Assembly’s business planning.

Mr Speaker: There are only a few Members left to speak, most of whom are members of the Business Committee. I propose that, rather than suspend now and resume the debate later, we complete the debate and, by leave of the House, suspend until after lunch.

Mr Alban Maginness: I found Mr Cobain’s contribution interesting. The question of the definition of parity legislation must be looked at in more depth. It is something that the Committee on Procedures should consider further.
I thank Mr Conor Murphy for his chairmanship in relation to the report and for steering the Committee through difficult areas. I also thank the Committee Clerk and the other staff who assisted with the report.
I support the motion. This investigation of the legislative procedure has been a learning process for all the Committee members. As the Chairperson said, we are in our infancy as regards progressing legislation. As the legislative programme increases, there will undoubtedly be further procedural quirks or problems that will need to be fully addressed.
The report highlights — and this should be recognised — the fact that legislation is progressed relatively quickly and efficiently through the Assembly. It also demonstrates that the institutions that emerged from the Good Friday Agreement work, and that Committees do an effective job in scrutinising draft legislation.
I will concentrate my remarks on the Committees. It is important that Members’ attention be drawn to Committees and their roles. Current Standing Orders do not permit Committees to amend Bills. I am puzzled as to why that is so. Like many other Members, I suspect that when the Act was drafted there were some, perhaps understandable, fears about how Committees might behave — or even misbehave. Indeed, there may have been some concern as to whether they would actually work at all.
There may also have been a fear that, if Committees were given the authority to amend Bills at Committee Stage, Bills would be amended beyond recognition and, effectively, shredded. The recent argument over the Local Government (Best Value) Bill puts that fear to bed. That Bill is an example of how a Committee can use its influence to radically alter a Bill without actually having the power to amend it.
As the Chairperson of a Statutory Committee, I am particularly interested in that issue. On the Committee’s visits to the Oireachtas and the Scottish Parliament, I was extremely impressed by the scrutiny role that Committees play in those legislatures, especially the way in which Committees are able to go through a Bill line by line with the Minister and seek his explanation for any provisions that they wish to query.
As such meetings are in public session and are recorded, it is possible for the public, and indeed other Members, to see the Minister’s intention behind any particular provision of a Bill. It could be compared with the practice of using probing amendments, which are designed to get the Minister’s explanation of a particular clause on public record without really intending to amend the clause. This Assembly might benefit from the use of probing amendments.
Having observed the practice in other places, the Committee and I gave much thought to giving Assembly Committees the authority to amend Bills. I can see no substantive reason why Committees should not be given that authority. I find it strange that the Committee for Regional Development, of which I am Chairperson, can, at least in theory, bring forward its own legislation, yet it cannot amend legislation.
However, I accept that any such change would require more in-depth consultation, particularly with the Executive, because a change at Committee Stage would have implications for the role of the Minister.
Equally, further consultation with each Committee would be necessary. As the Chairperson may have mentioned, the Committees have made no substantive demand for that. That will change, perhaps not during this Assembly mandate, but probably in the next, when I hope that we will all be present — [Interruption].
I note that everyone endorses that hope. In time, Committees will exercise fully the responsibility and authority that was given to them by the Good Friday Agreement.
In conclusion, the importance of the review should not be underestimated. It has shown that as a legislature we are fulfilling people’s expectations and hopes by legislating to the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I apologise for not having been present to move a motion in my name, due to circumstances far beyond my control.
The report details a thorough review of the current procedures for progressing legislation through the Assembly. The Committee discussed at length the key issue of parity legislation. As a former Minister, I know only too well the need to introduce legislation quickly. That applies to social security legislation, as the unique position of social security, child support and pensions is specifically recognised in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 87 of the Act recognises the long-standing principle of parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in social security. Although social security is still a devolved matter, it has already been agreed with the Secretary of State responsible for social security that there will be a single system for social security, child support and pensions.
Although I acknowledge that parity is necessary and that the speedy introduction of such legislation is important, I am mindful of the relevant Committee’s important statutory obligation to scrutinise legislation. A balance must be reached, but we are not at the stage of recommending a method of achieving that. That is unfortunate, because the matter should be addressed sooner rather than later. It is a complex issue, which is not as straightforward as sometimes it seems. For example, there are differences of opinion on the exact meaning of "parity". Its meaning is clear to me, but I cannot speak for everyone in the House.
Parity covers the content of the legislation as well as the timing of its implementation, and we must ensure that the people of Northern Ireland do not lose out. That is a real danger, particularly when we deal with social security legislation, and, as Minister for Social Development, I made that point when I sought accelerated passage for the Social Security Fraud Bill in 2001.
I recognise that there must be further work and consultation on the issue, and I am pleased to note that OFMDFM will present draft procedures to the Committee on Procedures.
I urge that that be done sooner rather than later, so that the draft procedures are not lost in the ether of OFMDFM.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I congratulate the Committee on Procedures on the substantial amount of work that it did when considering the issue. All the answers have not been provided, but a start has been made that will focus people’s minds. The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development addressed most of the issues that I intended to address, and I support his remarks.
Several points reinforce his comments. Problems exist with parity and accelerated passage. The situation is different in the Scottish Parliament. People claim that that is because Scotland has a Parliament, while Northern Ireland has an Assembly. However, if Westminster legislation is to be introduced in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament is informed in advance. Members of the Scottish Parliament have the opportunity to consider the legislation ahead of time — we do not have that opportunity. We are told that, because of parity, we cannot consider legislation until Westminster has agreed it.
I agree with most of what Mr Morrow said, except for his comments on balance. We must make decisions. If the balance problem concerns content or timing, we must decide whether we accept parity and allow legislation to have accelerated passage, or whether we believe that we should have an input earlier in the formulation of legislation rather than at its introduction. The argument is not whether people in Liverpool and Londonderry should get the same money. The argument is about content, and what it could mean for people’s human rights.
The best system for us would be for the Assembly to consider the legislation at the beginning of the drafting process. If we decide that Westminster should introduce legislation for the entire United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, we should allow the Committee for Social Development to bring other Bills before the House to be scrutinised. Social security legislation is important, but members of the Committee for Social Development are frustrated because they have little say in its creation. They cannot scrutinise it — it is presented to them as a fait accompli. That must change or else we must concede that, as we accept parity, we accept that Westminster will not introduce legislation here that contains inequalities.
I accept what Conor Murphy said about the amount of legislation that is introduced. However, we should exercise caution when saying that the Assembly’s infancy is the reason for the paralysis. We must examine the paralysis that exists in introducing legislation and find a cure for it. We should not make excuses about the Assembly being in its infancy. We must consider how best to introduce, scrutinise and implement legislation so that the people benefit from it.

Mr David McClarty: I support the motion and endorse the report. The report marks the end of an extensive review of the procedures that we use to progress legislation in the Assembly. As we enter the final year of the current Assembly mandate, it is only right that we evaluate how efficient our procedures are for progressing the basic function of the Assembly, which is to legislate.
The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures highlighted several important recommendations in the report, and I support that. One of the report’s most practical recommendations relates to the Further Consideration Stage of a Bill. The Committee on Procedures introduced that stage in July 2000 in response to concern that was expressed — which the Committee shared — that the Assembly should be given a second opportunity to amend a Bill.
Prior to that, there was only one opportunity — at Consideration Stage — to amend legislation. When the Further Consideration Stage was introduced, it was recognised that an evaluation of its effectiveness would be required at a later date. This was primarily because it was agreed, with good reason, that Further Consideration Stage should be a rerun of Consideration Stage. Again, that was introduced when this legislature had considered only a few Bills.
It must be acknowledged that Further Consideration Stage has not caused any procedural problems to date. However, the Committee concluded that it could foresee a scenario where, in an extreme case, a clause or schedule of a Bill could be voted in at Consideration Stage and voted down at Further Consideration Stage. The net result of that would be, at best, bad legislation, and, at worst, defective legislation. The Committee agreed that the loophole must be closed.
To address the situation, the Committee recommends that Further Consideration Stage should apply only to those clauses or schedules that are subject to amendment, and that only amendments should be voted on. That clause or schedule should not be voted on again, because it has already been voted to stand part of the Bill. This is consistent with the practice in the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament.
Although the Committee focused most of its attention on the procedures relating to primary legislation, it made a couple of recommendations on subordinate legislation. The main recommendation addresses what the Committee considered to be a gap in Standing Orders, and concerns the Assembly’s ability to scrutinise all subordinate legislation, which is the practice in the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. Under existing Standing Orders, some pieces of subordinate legislation are not subject to Assembly scrutiny, despite the fact that they have considerable powers. For example, the Examiner of Statutory Rules’ recent report highlighted the way in which some subordinate legislation that is not subject to Assembly scrutiny has the power to modify primary legislation. I am sure that Members agree that we should not continue to allow that scenario to exist.
In its consideration of the matter, the Committee agreed that the Assembly should have the power to scrutinise all legislation. It is important, as a legislature, that we have procedures in place that allow the closest possible examination of subordinate legislation.
I endorse the report and commend it to the Assembly.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Members for their contributions. I am pleased that they agree that the Committee’s review of the legislative process was worthwhile. It was certainly timely because many of the frustrations with, and anomalies in, the system have been highlighted. We have dealt with some of those, and we will have to set our minds to dealing with others.
Members made it clear that some of the issues that were raised in the report will be revisited in the near future. The issue of parity legislation, which was highlighted by Fred Cobain, Maurice Morrow and Billy Hutchinson, is recognised by the Committee as being a complex issue. The Committee accepts that the matter will need to be examined in greater detail in the next few months. There is a divergence of opinion on the issue, and it will not be easy to reach agreement, but we must set our minds to it.
Fred Cobain made several points about parity legislation, the first of which concerned the definition of "parity". That is useful, but I am not sure whether it is the responsibility of the Committee on Procedures or the Committee for Social Development to pursue that. He also proposed a formal mechanism for the scrutiny of Bills that are passed in Westminster. I am sure that the Committee Clerks have noted those points, and we must check which Committee is responsible; it may be the Committee on Procedures. However, if those Bills would normally fall to the Social Development Committee, it may be a matter for it to pursue. The proposal for such a mechanism would find widespread sympathy here.
I echo Maurice Morrow’s call for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals to deal with parity legislation sooner rather than later — that is important.
Fred Cobain mentioned the abuse of the accelerated passage procedure. Parity legislation is important for the people that we represent, but there are even bigger decisions that do not require such a high threshold as obtaining the leave of the House, and, therefore, the Committee proposes to lower the threshold so that all that is required is cross-community support. Of course, that system can be abused, but so can any voting procedure. We propose that one Member’s objection to a Bill should no longer be sufficient to stop that Bill from gaining accelerated passage — in order for it to be blocked, there must be some substantial disagreement.
All procedures and Standing Orders are continuously reviewed; we regularly get suggestions from Committees, Members, the Executive and the Speaker as to changes that they feel are necessary, and we revise them on that basis.
Fred Cobain suggested the idea of an alternative amendment to allow the House to decide the length of the Committee Stage, Bill by Bill, depending on how complex the Bill is considered to be. Although we have not heard that suggestion before, we received a variety of opinions on how long the Committee Stage should be. We have changed the length from 30 calendar days to 30 working days — in effect, six weeks.
The Committee that has dealt with the most legislation is the Committee for Finance and Personnel. Some Committees have never dealt with the Committee Stage of a Bill, and we will happily revisit the matter if this proves not to work properly. If Members find that there is a case for deciding on the length of the Committee Stage of each Bill as it proceeds through the House, we will re-examine the matter. One of the most important points in our report is the need for proper pre-legislative scrutiny — an idea that Mr Cobain supported. The introduction of draft Bills to Committees would considerably reduce the length of time needed at Committee Stage.
Alban Maginness spoke about our consideration of the suggestion that all Committees should be given the authority to amend Bills. Although he, and others, have supported that suggestion, the fact that no Committee has asked for that facility to be granted to it was a key factor in our decision not to introduce that suggestion at this stage. However, as with all the other proposals, we are willing to revisit it should a case be made, and I am sure that that will happen as Committees gain more expertise in dealing with Bills.
Billy Hutchinson mentioned the paralysis in legislation coming forward from OFMDFM. The Committee’s report does not attempt to provide any rationale or excuse for that. Many people share Mr Hutchinson’s frustration. Our report examines the legislative process with a view to making it more efficient, although not necessarily with a view to speeding it up. The report deals with the period between the introduction of a Bill and its Final Stage. The delay in introducing Bills for a First Stage is outside the remit of this report, but it is an issue that many Members have raised and will continue to raise until those delays are dealt with effectively.
David McClarty mentioned Further Consideration Stage and subordinate legislation. A recurring theme throughout the inquiry was that the Executive wanted the process of legislation speeded up and the Members wanted it slowed down — although it may not have been expressed as bluntly as that. We did not try to strike a balance because that is not our job. Our job is to represent what we believe are Members’ interests and those of the House as a whole, and that means providing proper scrutiny. At times, we heard contrary views from the Executive and the Committees in general. The proposals make for more effective scrutiny of legislation, which is our role here. Their purpose is not simply to facilitate the rushing through of legislation; it is also to facilitate more effective scrutiny on behalf of the electorate.
As I said at the start of the debate, the procedures for the progression of legislation need to be kept under continuous review. As Committees gain more experience in the scrutiny of legislation, they will be better informed to identify necessary improvements to procedures. The Committee on Procedures firmly believes that the recommendations identified in its report will improve the efficiency with which we progress legislation in the Assembly. However, the cornerstone to any improvements will be more detailed and meaningful pre- legislative consultation. I ask the Executive to take on board that point and to do their utmost to ensure that Committees are consulted at an early stage about proposed legislation. Where possible, a draft of the Bill should be submitted to the Committee for scrutiny.
I conclude by endorsing the report to the Assembly and, once again, by thanking all who took time to participate in the debate. I also want to place on record, as Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, Committee members’ appreciation for the Clerk and staff of the Committee, and all who assisted in the production of the report.

Mr Speaker: Before putting the question, I remind the House, for the sake of clarity, that the passage of this report, insofar as it calls for changes in Standing Orders, will not implement changes in Standing Orders. They will have to be implemented at a subsequent stage and, of course, voted through on a cross-community basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the findings contained in the First Report of the Committee on Procedures: ‘Review of the Legislative Process in the Northern Ireland Assembly’ (Report 01/01R) and endorses the recommendations contained therein.
The sitting was suspended at 12.57 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Capital Spending in Education

Mr Danny Kennedy: I beg to move
That this Assembly expresses its concern at the backlog of capital works required for school buildings across all geographic areas and all sectors of education in Northern Ireland. The Assembly asks the Minister of Education to take note of the underinvestment in the controlled sector and the pattern of capital spending announcements in recent years when deciding upon the allocation of money for school building in March 2002.
Is there any indication as to whether the Minister of Education intends to be present for the debate?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have not been informed by the Minister as to whether he will be in attendance.

Mr Barry McElduff: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification on the objective criteria deployed to select amendments. For the second year running in this type of debate, an amendment offered by my party has been disregarded, even though it is fairly close in substance and form to the original motion. I have to wonder whether this is political correctness. We are very concerned about the sidelining of our amendment. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I shall make two remarks. First, the Member has been in the Assembly long enough to know that he need not be informed of the reason why the Speaker selected, or did not select, an amendment. Secondly, I strongly advise the Member against any inference that the Speaker’s Office might be in any way politically motivated. I cannot emphasise that strongly enough.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I speak as a private Member and not in my role as the Chairperson of the Committee for Education. I am concerned at the absence of the Minister of Education, and I wait with interest to see whether he attends this important and very timely debate.
The motion seeks to draw the Assembly’s attention to the unacceptable condition of schools in every sector of our education system. Although I accept that school capital projects have been underfunded for many years — even from before the Assembly was created — I must highlight the current Minister’s poor record in addressing that problem.
It is not good enough for the Minister to hide behind the historic underfunding excuse, given his failure either to entice more money from the Executive or to produce proposals based on PFIs or public-private partnerships to meet the needs of our schools.
During my regular contact with school principals, boards of governors and educationists it has become clear that the condition of our schools has reached crisis point. Fresh, imaginative thinking must be employed to address the situation. Members will be aware — through constituency work and their service on school boards of governors — that the schools estate is in a very sorry state, with crumbling buildings and many out-of-date and unacceptable mobile classrooms. We expect pupils to excel in those circumstances and for teachers and staff to withstand those conditions. Meanwhile, the Minister and his Department seem powerless to address those problems. The motion is a cry for help to the Assembly to do something about the situation rather than to wring our hands and blame the Tories.
The other main section of the motion highlights the very real concern over the confirmed pattern of underfunding that exists in the controlled sector, as well as the indisputable evidence that such discrimination exists and is apparently actively pursued by the Minister, presumably to pursue his party’s narrow political ends.
Undoubtedly the Minister will attempt to excuse his actions and previous announcements by quoting statistics that effectively seek to gloss over the true situation and to ignore reality. I am especially concerned at the treatment meted out by the Minister to post-primary schools — secondary and grammar — in the controlled sector over recent years. The truth does not lie in the statistics produced by the Minister and his officials, which at first seem fair and equitable. It is only when one digs deeply into the ministerial announcements and press releases that one begins to unearth the truth of the matter.
For example, last year no school in what might crudely be called the Protestant grammar sector received any funding allocation. Whether that was a result of the Minister’s well-documented opposition to the grammar sector remains a matter for speculation; only the Minister can answer that. Whether it was the politics of envy being practised by an old-style socialist matters not: no allocation was made.
The other method that the Minister consistently used to cover his tracks when dealing with allegations of unfair treatment against the controlled sector was to pretend that schools such as special schools are really controlled schools, or that integrated schools fit into the controlled category. Again, such assertions are a blatant distortion of the facts. Most Members will accept that special schools cannot, and should not, be categorised or labelled as being either controlled or maintained, given that they serve the needs of the entire community in a non-sectarian fashion. They are entitled to a category of their own that will recognise their unique contribution to education in Northern Ireland.
Likewise, it is wrong that the integrated sector should be included in the controlled sector simply to balance the ministerial books. I suspect that the advocates of integrated education — some of whom are prominent Members of the House — would be horrified to imagine that their schools were grouped within the controlled sector when the Minister was performing the sectarian headcount. It would be much more honest and honourable to recognise them in their own status.
The sad truth is that successive Ministers — not just the present incumbent — have used this rather novel system when crediting the controlled sector with allocations in capital building announcements. Tony Worthington did so, as did John McFall. Even poor old Michael Ancram fell into the trap. Undoubtedly predecessors such as Brian Mawhinney did so too. The Minister can put away his book of impressive statistics; they simply will not wash.
I wish to touch on two other matters. First, I want to highlight the ongoing lack of transparency in the system by which the Minister and his Department make allocations. Secondly, I wish to mention the role of the education and library boards in this process.
In spite of detailed discussions with departmental officials on the system used to determine the allocations made each year under category 3, it proved impossible for the Committee for Education to gain a clear understanding of how projects are chosen for inclusion. Although the members of the Committee for Education are an extremely determined bunch, we could not establish, try as we might, how the final allocations were made. Bagehot’s famous phrase about the royal family and letting in light upon magic appears to be appropriate here. It is an unacceptable state of affairs that should, and must, be addressed by the Minister to the satisfaction, not only of the Education Committee, but of all Members.
My final concern surrounds the role played by the education and library boards in the system used by the Department to consider bids for the final allocation of capital building funds. The Education Committee found clear evidence that over the past couple of years, projects put forward as contenders by the boards were rejected by the Department because they were apparently incomplete. That is an unsatisfactory situation that the relevant boards must address and resolve without delay. Many schools in the controlled sector were oblivious to that situation, and it gave them a false expectation that could never be met.
In conclusion, if the Assembly is to help build a new Northern Ireland, that must be done purely on the basis of equity between all our people, and by clearly transparent policies, evident and practised throughout our system of government. If the current Minister of Education wishes to subscribe to those principles, he must stop taking decisions and making announcements that are clearly at odds with the notion of fairness and equity so publicly enunciated by him. It is time for the Minister to go back to the drawing board, and that will be the test of his stewardship as Minister of Education. The question is, will he pass or will he fail? At the moment it is not looking good.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I beg to move the following amendment: In line 3 delete all after "Northern Ireland".
I am sure that all Members will join me in expressing concern at the backlog of capital school building works required across all geographical areas and the different sectors of education in Northern Ireland. If we could wave a wand and deal with all the schools on the planning list for capital development, it would take — at the very least — £500 million. As everybody knows, we cannot do that. Far too many schools will continue to be in a state of disrepair. Members know that poor accommodation and sub-standard school premises hinder the learning process of children caught up in such unfortunate circumstances.
I draw Members’ attention to the important word in the motion. The important word is "all", as in "all geographical areas and all sectors of education". The Assembly is committed to the principle of equality. Most important of all is the principle of equal treatment for our children. In deciding the allocation of funding — whenever that is done — the principle of equality has to be adhered to. Therefore allocation must be on the basis of need. That must be a guiding principle that underlies and underpins any allocations of funds, not just in March 2002 as the motion says, but every year. If we are to create a pluralist society that recognises and values diversity, we cannot see gain in one educational sector as a loss in any other.
The second sentence of the motion implies, and the remarks of the mover of the motion confirm, that the concern is sectoral, as opposed to a concern for the needs of all children in all schools. We have heard examples used to suggest that there is a biased pattern of spending in the capital development programme. I have reservations about how Mr Kennedy makes the distinction between schools in the controlled sector and those outside it. I disagree with the way in which he has presented and interpreted that distinction.
I want to return to the principle of equality. As I said before, no school should be denied funding on the grounds that it belongs to a particular sector. Another important factor that greatly influences allocation, to which the mover referred, is whether a school that is on the planning list has those plans at a sufficiently advanced stage for approval to be given and funds to be allocated. Very often, as some Members will know, schools are not eligible for funding because their plans are not complete. That is one area that needs a great deal more attention. If we are to achieve equality of treatment and direct resources to the most deserving and needy schools, more must be done to ensure that the schools with the worst conditions get the necessary help to have their plans ready in time for consideration. There have been examples over the years where expectations were built up that schools would get allocations, only to not receive them. That has been repeated year after year. We have to look seriously at that issue and assist schools so that they can get their plans ready and receive their allocations.

Mr Robert McCartney: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I will not give way. Lack of preparedness of development plans in the past has meant that some schools in need have missed out. That has more to do with the failure to achieve funding rather than a suggestion of bias against any sector. There are ongoing concerns, and I want to refer briefly to those projects identified to go forward under public-private partnership (PPP). Projects for several schools were announced in last year’s round. It is regrettable that, since then, we have seen no sign of progress on that work. The rate of progress under PPP seems to be very slow — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are aware — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr McCartney — Order.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: While there is — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr McCartney, I will remind you about your attitude towards the Table for the last time this afternoon.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Robert McCartney: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Since you did not warn me before, how can you warn me for the last time?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Sit down, Mr McCartney, or I will have you named and taken from the Chamber.

Mr Robert McCartney: No, you will not have me taken from the Chamber. You may have me named.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Sit down, Mr Gallagher. I name you, Mr McCartney. Please leave.
The Member withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: The rate of progress under PPP is very slow. Schools are not seeing any progress, although they are aware that in the case of one school the figure that the Minister quoted for consultants’ fees was in excess of £620,000. The Assembly must receive definite information soon from the Minister and the Department about the start date for such schemes.
Accepting the substantive motion takes us into the realm of sectoral rivalry. Therefore I ask Members to support the amendment because it best serves and safeguards the interests of all our schools.

Mr Donovan McClelland: As Members are aware, 90 minutes have been allocated for the debate. Therefore I must restrict each Member to five minutes.

Rev William McCrea: I welcome the opportunity to speak, and I thank the Members who tabled the motion. They do a service to the community when they highlight blatant sectarianism in the allocation of finances. Schools across the Province are in an unacceptable condition, but the record in the state sector, under the stewardship of the Minister of Education, breaks all the bounds of any political agenda. No one can hide behind the argument of historic underfunding. It has been a reality in the maintained and controlled sectors. We know what it is to have crumbling school buildings and, therefore, we are asking for some fairness concerning the money that is available.
It is about time that we unearthed the truth. It is difficult to get answers from the Department of Education. I asked questions, but I was denied the answers because it would cost too much money to provide them. I tried another approach to obtain some of the figures. However, what I find in the written answers is far from the reality of the situation that I am trying to unearth.
Children’s education is one of the most important aspects of modern day parenting. We have entered a period when learning will define our lives as never before. In the twentieth century, education was made a basic right for all, yet the high standard of education for all has conspicuously failed to be delivered.
The expenditure of funds in Mid Ulster, which is my constituency and the Minister’s, highlights the inequality in the allocation of money. Members should come to the Magherafelt District Council area and see the situation for themselves. In recent years, several million pounds have been spent on the construction of St Mary’s Grammar School on the Castledawson Road. That was necessary, and the money did need to be spent. All sectors of education have the right to spend money on their schools.
The next school that we come to is the controlled high school. It is a dilapidated building; the mobile classrooms and building itself are falling apart. Little money has been spent on it.
One hundred yards along the road is St Pius X High School. From 2001-03, a budget of £12 million will be spent on that building and its furnishings. I was not provided with that information in any of the answers that I requested. St Mary’s Grammar School is at one end of the town and St Pius X High School is at the other — and approximately £20 million being spent on those two schools.
A dilapidated, deteriorating state school that everyone is entitled to attend is located between those schools. Protestant children are expected to continue their education in out-of-date laboratories and accommodation.
Maghera High School is deteriorating also; however, millions of pounds were spent on St Patrick’s school recently. New maintained schools are planned for Cookstown and Donaghmore. What about the state-controlled schools that everyone is welcome to attend? The Minister should be ashamed, rather than running around with a brass neck — the allocation of funds is discriminatory and blatantly sectarian. That is unacceptable from the so-called Minister.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The motion that Sammy Wilson and Danny Kennedy tabled is seriously flawed. We should be able to reasonably expect more from the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Education than for them to advocate a biased sectoral approach whereby money is diverted away from the needy and allocated on a sectarian basis instead.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Barry McElduff: The Member will have a chance to reply later in the form of a winding-up speech. Initially, Sammy Wilson brought this hardy annual before the Assembly, and the Committee Chairperson has now joined the enterprise. The proposers are feigning and inventing a sense of discrimination against the controlled sector as a means of Minister-bashing and to extract more funds for one sector. Rather, provision should be judged on the basis of need.
It is worrying for other Committee members that Sammy Wilson should be joined by the Committee Chairperson, who seems to be constantly looking over the Deputy Chairperson’s shoulder for fear that he will be outmanoeuvred by him. Sammy went it alone last year, but Danny is now acting as his sidekick on the matter. It damages the Committee’s reputation and that of the office of Chairperson.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Barry McElduff: No. I am glad that Mr Kennedy clearly stated that he did not speak on behalf of the Committee, although one might have thought that he did. I remind him that he does not speak on behalf of the Committee on the matter. I record my concern that an amendment that Mr McHugh and I tabled was overlooked, as was a similar amendment last year.
The Members who tabled the motion know better. However, they choose to ignore the evidence that the motion sectarianises the debate and is unhelpful and irresponsible, given the proposers’ positions on the Committee. Our amendment, which stated that spending should be directed on the basis of educational need, focuses on the needs of all sectors, which are substantial. Mr Gallagher stated that £500 million was needed to address those needs, and the backlog must be covered. However, there are insufficient resources to fund the number and cost of the projects that are required.
During the debate on the review of public administration, Dr Paisley referred colourfully to the proliferation of temporary classrooms as broken-down caravans defiling school yards. The Programme for Government comprises a target to reduce the number of temporary classrooms. Good luck to the Minister and to other Ministers in their prioritisation of that objective.
Major investment in all sectors is needed. Many classrooms are undersized and overcrowded, and there are structural deficiencies in the schools estate, health and safety risks, and an absence of dining halls and proper physical education facilities.
I am thankful that the new opportunities fund, through its physical education and sport programme, is addressing the deficiency in physical education.
All children deserve to be taught in warm, safe, dry buildings. They need to be stimulated in an attractive, modern learning environment in which the delivery of the curriculum will not be inhibited or narrowed.

Mr Derek Hussey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Barry McElduff: I have about 35 seconds left, and I choose not to give way.
The Members who tabled the motion know, or should know, that there are criteria. There is a methodology in place to determine which schools end up on the capital build programme. It is founded on the key element of educational need. However, there are none so deaf as those who will not hear.
I am opposed to a sectoral approach. If I were to go down that road I would be trumpeting the needs of the Irish-medium sector, but I accept that the situation will be judged on the basis of educational need, which must come first. I invite the Minister to visit Gaelscoil Uí Néill and Gaelscoil Uí Dhochartaigh in County Tyrone, if he is in the Magherafelt area.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr McElduff, your time is up.

Mr David Ford: The Assembly may have only been in existence for just over three years, but a few rituals seem to be developing — the annual Budget process, the annual Programme for Government process and now the annual get-at-the-Minister-over-the-allocation-of- schools-capital-fundi process.
That speculation will continue, and the concern will remain, until either we get adequate funds for our needs or we see more openness, accountability and transparency in the operation of the process. It is easy to identify the schools at the top of the priority scale where, for example, there is a need for a new building in an area with a growing population. Too many schools are clustered in the middle of the priority range in which competition is, unfortunately, seen as sectoral. Until it is clear how the decisions for those schools in the middle of the range are made, this kind of debate will continue.
The criteria applied by the Department must be spelt out clearly, with an understanding that they apply across all sectors. There are many concerns — not all in the one direction — about one school apparently being favoured over another. The Department must spell out how it balances the claims made by five different boards, with not only the ordinary controlled schools, if I may put it that way, but the special needs schools to be looked after — not to mention the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) and umpteen voluntary grammar schools, each looking after their own interests.
I am unclear as to how the priority lists that are supposed to apply in each board, or within CCMS or NICIE, are dealt with by the Department. I have a constituency interest in that Loanends Primary School, outside Templepatrick, is near the top of the North Eastern Education and Library Board’s priority list, but I have no way of knowing whether it will be at the top when it reaches the Department’s priority list.
Similarly, I am aware of the need for work to be done on Hillcroft Special School. Eileen Bell will be extremely annoyed if I do not also mention Tor Bank in her constituency. Unless we know how the special schools are dealt with and whether they are taken on the same or a separate basis, it is impossible to know what is a realistic assessment.
The proposer of the motion referred to his concerns that integrated schools are lumped in with controlled schools. He thought that advocates of integrated education should be concerned about that situation on a sectarian basis. I think that I may rightly claim to be one of the advocates of integrated education in the House, but what concerns me much more is the fact that those who tabled the motion have adopted a sectarian, point-scoring way of dealing with the issues. It is not a matter of how schools are lumped together — it is a matter of whether needs are being met, or whether we are simply reiterating sectarian attitudes in the House. I find it difficult to see the second sentence of the motion as anything but sectarian point-scoring and sectional pleading.
I am not interested in the pattern of spending over recent years; I am interested in the schools with the greatest need this year, on an objective assessment, getting the money. If that means that maintained schools get more money two or three years in a row because they have objective need, that is correct. If it is controlled schools that get more money for two or three years in a row from now on because they have more need, that is also correct.
If integrated schools — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr David Ford: — receive more money because they have more need, that is also correct. It is time that the Unionist Members moved away from treating everything to do with education as sectarian point-scoring. That is what the motion does. I support Mr Gallagher’s amendment, because it states that we should address concerns about lack of funding and moves away from inappropriate sectional pleading.
The major issues concern how we get the necessary funds to deal with the backlog, how the priorities are drawn up and how the process is seen to be open and transparent. However, if the Minister wants to make progress, he must ensure that the entire process is seen to be transparent. He must ensure that the House addresses the needs of children instead of engaging in sectarian point-scoring.

Mr Sam Foster: The debate is interesting, and I support the motion. The Prime Minister said that his priorities were, "Education, education, education", and I agree with him. It was interesting to hear Mr McElduff say that the motion is seriously flawed. Does anyone believe that Mr McElduff is not what he accuses others of being? We can make up our own minds about that.
I am concerned about the lack of capital spending for schools in general, but there is undoubted underinvestment in the controlled sector. I seek equality for all. We talk about openness and transparency, of which I approve. However, I am becoming cynical and unconvinced about the action, intent or meaning that emanate from such choice words.
I am also concerned about the lack of capital expenditure available to at least two schools in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Although there are others, my first example is Fivemiletown High School. Fivemiletown school has been the most successful educational establishment in the Clogher valley for many years. It has provided first-class education for the area, but, given its facilities, its teachers are battling against the odds. The school buildings are sub-standard, which is unacceptable. We do not want to let such a fine educational establishment fail after so many years of excellence. That would be a crying shame and unforgivable.
There are 430 pupils enrolled at that successful school. There are still 15 mobile classrooms in the school complex. The board of governors has a go-ahead attitude, and over the years it has taken the initiative to augment the existing facilities by running an internal fund-raising programme. Moneys amounting to £100,000 have been raised on occasion to make provision for the students. To the governors’ credit, no finance for the works came from the school budget.
Optimism was raised in 1995 when detailed architectural plans for a new building were produced. Bore holes were drilled and samples taken, which suggested an imminent start to the project. In 2000, the school topped the Southern Education and Library Board’s list for new building work. However, in March 2001, it was established that the school was not among those listed for pending work. That left people asking "Why? Oh why?"
The burning question for those involved with that school is why the school disappeared from the original list. That fine school continues to operate, but it does so under extremely poor conditions. Last year its top student obtained 5 grade As at A level. Such achievements must not be lost because of a lack of money for new buildings. That would be damning for the people who allowed it to happen.
We must have conditions that keep with the needs of the sort of commendable education provision that has been displayed by Fivemiletown High School for more than 40 years. Immediate action is undoubtedly required at that school.
My second example is the integrated primary school in Enniskillen. I recently wrote to the Minister, and he replied to my letter. However, I implore him to action urgent new build for that school, which provides good primary education, albeit in temporary classrooms.
I urge the Minister to act immediately to rectify the problems in those two schools so that the admirable tuition that is provided there will not be nullified. Capital expenditure is needed immediately if teachers, students and society are to benefit fully. Underfunding affects educational and academic potential, regardless of age, ability or attitude. The Assembly must not inhibit the children of Northern Ireland’s progress. I support the motion.

Mr John Fee: Many Members, including the mover of the motion, used words such as "equity", "equality", "fairness" and "openness". Everyone agrees with those objectives. They also agree with the first part of the motion. The capital programme continues to be affected by a resource problem. Much work is needed, and many schools are sub-standard. The Assembly, collectively, wants to see that problem solved.
However, under no circumstances would I accept the prioritisation by a Minister of Education of capital funding for schools based on sectarian criteria. The second part of the motion asks the Minister to make decisions on a blatantly offensive and sectarian basis. I reject the second part of the motion and support the amendment that was tabled by my Colleague Mr Gallagher.
Members have issued many allegations against the Department of Education and the Minister. I have no brief to defend the Minster of Education. However, the Committee for Education should take account of the evidence that it receives regularly, and of the evidence that has been published. If it believes that it is being lied to, it should put its money where its mouth is and give the Assembly the relevant statistics. The published figures show that, since 1997, 32 projects were carried out in the controlled sector, six in the voluntary sector, 24 in the Catholic maintained sector and six in the other sectors.
Come on boys. The Chairperson of the Committee for Education, when he was wearing his Ulster Unionist hat, said that the figures looked pretty good. The figures undermine any allegation of systematic discrimination. Members have stood up, one after the other, like a Mexican wave around the Chamber, to name the underfunded schools in their constituency. Among them was Rev Dr William McCrea — the House knows that schools in his constituency are underfunded. Members are welcome to visit areas such as Jonesborough or Drumatee, where similar conditions exist. If Members simply want to gripe about schools in their own constituencies that need capital investment, the motion should say that. Let us not wrap up the debate in allegations of systematic sectarian manipulation of the capital investment fund — that is not taking place.
Other real problems exist in respect of how the final list of schools reaches the Minister’s desk, where decisions are made. Each education and library board, the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (NICCEA), and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) have their own criteria for prioritising — for example, the state of the roof of a school, the need for proper play facilities, demographics and the state of long-term enrolment, and the need to provide for disabled children or those with learning problems.
Certain boards prioritise on the basis of how high on the planning list a school might be. On the grounds of efficacy in getting a project through, the board might choose a project that is highly developed but not necessarily the most needy. There must be a clear statement that all decisions will be made on the basis of need to create an appropriate educational environment for every child, regardless of school or sector. There must be clear, published, agreed assessment criteria across all the education bodies involved. An increase in the efficiency and accessibility of professional management for the planning and implementation of those projects is needed.
We certainly need a much more professional approach on the part of the Department and on the part of the boards of governors that are introducing those projects.
There are problems. I do not like the way in which the capital investment programme is put together. I do not even know all the criteria that the Minister uses. However, I am fairly sure that there has been no sectarian bias over the past five years.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I support the motion. I am absolutely amazed at some of Mr Fee’s comments. I suspect that if funding were distorted against his community in the way that it has been against the controlled sector, he would not make such remarks. Anyone with even half a head can see that there is a serious imbalance. Schools in the controlled sector seem to be relegated to the second class and do not seem to matter any more.
I want to pick up Mr Foster’s theme. I support his comments on the two schools that he mentioned. Fivemiletown High School has an academic success rate that is second to none. However, the school also has a long track record of self-help. It is not a school that waits for things to happen. When funding did not come forward, the staff, community and pupils provided many things for the school. Had it not been for such endeavours, Fivemiletown High School would probably be uninhabitable for students.
In 1972, in the absence of Government funding, the school provided its own outdoor swimming pool, which was entirely financed through internal funding. There was no Government support or encouragement to get on with the work. In 1975-76, as a result of increased pupil numbers, additional classrooms were provided and the need for a building extension was identified. Between 1978 and 1980, the Southern Education and Library Board (SELB) produced a building extension plan. Between 1982 and 1984, almost half the pupils were taught in mobile classrooms.
If that is not a serious case of deprivation and underfunding, I do not know what is. In 1985, an up-to-date report stated that there was no progress on the building project. By 1994, the project was no further on. The outdoor swimming pool was completely enclosed at a cost of £100,000. Again, most of that money came from fund-raising. In 1995, a deputation to the then Minister of Education, Mr Ancram, highlighted the need for additional funding. By 2000, the school had crept up to the top of the SELB’s list for a new building.
Then the current Minister made his announcement. Was Fivemiletown High School to get its fair allocation? The answer was "No". The school has been listed as category 3 — a seriously sub-standard school. Among the identified needs are a scheme to address the shortfall in permanent accommodation and the need to improve subject areas for a long-term enrolment of some 500 pupils. Despite that, Fivemiletown High School is not mentioned in the Minister’s list of priorities.
Mr Fee should rethink his comments and take a long, hard, in-depth look at exactly what is happening with funding for the controlled sector. I suspect that, when he takes a balanced view, he will not come up with the result that he mentioned — he may even want to support the motion.
I have been approached by the integrated school in Enniskillen. That school has also been neglected. I am absolutely convinced, and have no hesitation in saying, that funding should be directed to where it is needed. That is all we ask for, but it is not happening. I am amazed to see the amendment try to sectarianise and politicise the motion. The motion is neither sectarian nor political.
We want only a fair and equitable distribution of funding for the controlled sector. I refer to the two schools mentioned earlier, and I trust that when priority needs have been reassessed Fivemiletown will be given its proper place on the list.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support Mr Gallagher’s amendment, as well as the amendment that was tabled by Mr McElduff and myself. They are much more accurate than the motion. The drift of the motion does not surprise me — it is visited annually in a similar guise — and it is far from anything agreed at Committee level. It concerns advocating bias and sectarianism. We have tried to move away from that, but the motion perpetuates what we had in the past.
Capital spending is directed to schools on the basis of educational need and not on the basis of to what sector the school belongs. To do otherwise would direct funding away from the needy and allocate it on a sectarian basis. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights reported in 1996 that the amount of temporary teaching accommodation in Catholic schools was three times that in Protestant schools. Such discrepancy was the result of decades of discrimination against Catholic schools by successive Unionist Governments. Unionists are in denial if they refuse to accept that their past policies are responsible for the legacy of underfunding in the Catholic maintained sector.
Schools in the controlled sector with a good case for capital funding must put such cases to the Department of Education. It would be tragic if the schools and their pupils were treated unfairly because of poor representation by those responsible for education. That is true for thousands of children in the controlled sector who are subjected to the transfer procedure, as well as for those whose school premises are unsatisfactory. The situation in Ardoyne has had a massive impact on the overall budget, and that in turn impacts on the schools budget.
Ardoyne is only one area where there is social deprivation. Communities in socially deprived or underdeveloped areas — TSN areas — should seek equality and free school meals. A recent article in the ‘News Letter’ threw out a challenge to Unionism. It stated that
"loyalist working classes have always been ignored by mainstream unionism."
It went on to say that the Unionist working class was used as mere electoral fodder for the political elite, and that both political parties in mainstream unionism remain irredeemably middle class in outlook and policy.
Why do people such as Sammy Wilson argue for the retention of the 11-plus selection system? That system has failed the people in those deprived areas. Why does he not argue for TSN spending and free school meals, which will help to improve the budgets of schools in such areas and save money for capital spend on schools that need to be built.
Everyone supports an increase in the overall budgets of schools. However, the areas that need new schools must be represented. Schools must put their cases factually, in time and in full, ready for implementation.
Have those who tabled of the motion ever asked for a quality impact assessment? If they have not done so, the reason is probably that it would destroy their sectarian arguments, which have no foundation in fact. Go raibh maith agat.

Mrs Iris Robinson: My Colleague Sammy Wilson will respond to the comments of the previous Member to speak.
Few issues have caused as much disquiet and anger as Martin McGuinness’s appointment to serve as Minister of Education in Northern Ireland. That development sent a shock wave around the Province and prompted many accusations that the Department of Education would be run to Mr McGuinness’s personal agenda and that state schools — controlled schools — which cater for the majority of the Protestant community, would be discriminated against in favour of the Catholic maintained and Irish-medium sectors. Some individuals castigated those who followed that school of thought and lauded the success of devolution and the return of what they called "accountable government".
Why are we debating the issue today? What has happened in the past few years to cause Members to doubt the integrity and ability of the Minister of Education? We are here today for the same reason that was voiced three years ago: that IRA/Sinn Féin would not operate the Department of Education on the principles of equity and fairness.
Like a footballer, one is only as good as one’s last game. Therefore, we should not prejudge the Minister’s performance. We should consider his recent record. The Minister inherited a portfolio that had experienced a huge deficit in the funding that was allocated to state schools, which mainly cater for the Unionist community, and in the funding that was allocated to the maintained and integrated sectors, which mainly cater for the Nationalist community.
In the five years prior to his appointment, a total of £230 million was provided for education, of which only £50 million was allocated to state schools. A mere 21% of all moneys granted was allocated to the schools that provide education to more than 50% of primary school children. It may have been fair to assume that, as a party so obsessed with equality and fairness, IRA/Sinn Féin would have taken the necessary action to counter that blatant discrimination. However, of the £72 million announced in 2000-01, only £27·7 million was given to the state sector, while £40·3 million was given to the maintained sector. Even on that basis the Minister was found wanting, because £14·4 million of the funding for the state sector was included in the previous year’s allocation.
As predicted, IRA/Sinn Féin’s commitment to equality continued — but only if one is a Nationalist. A total school investment package of £62·5 million was announced on 1 March. Only £14·3 million was allocated to the state sector. The Executive programme funds for schools and youth services capital projects that were announced on 2 April did not improve the situation. Of the total allocation of £20 million, only £2 million was directed to the state sector. It is an incredible situation that, unfortunately, was all too inevitable. It has led to an enormous backlog of urgent projects, and several projects in my constituency come to mind immediately.
Dundonald Primary School was built in the 1930s to cater for a few hundred pupils. The school now has 600 pupils, 200 of whom receive their education in mobile classrooms that are more than 30 years old and are in a dreadful state of disrepair. They provide an environment that neither pupils nor staff should have to tolerate. Toilet facilities are also abysmal. The school has more than 50 members of staff: female staff are provided with two toilets and one hand basin, and male staff have access to one toilet and one hand basin. That is unacceptable.
Tor Bank Special School in Dundonald provides education for 168 pupils with severe learning difficulties, who are aged from three years of age to 19 years of age. It was built in 1968 with facilities for eight classes. However, today there are 17 classes, eight of which are housed in mobile classrooms. The children who attend Tor Bank have specific needs, and in order to make the most of their abilities there must be total co-operation between parents, teaching staff and health professionals. Each time pupils need to go to the toilet or for lunch, they must either walk or be pushed in their wheelchairs up the steep hill on which the school is located. That is not conducive to the delivery of an acceptable level of education.
I support the motion.

Mr Oliver Gibson: This afternoon has been interesting because we have seen that, when it suits the occasion, the SDLP and Sinn Féin will unite. They have been caught in the act of discriminating, and they are howling, just as they have howled on every occasion for the past few decades.
We need investment of more than £1 billion, half of which is required for new building and half of which is required for repairs. For three decades we have had to spend money on repairing the destruction that the IRA caused. The SDLP has piggybacked the IRA’s violent efforts. All the money was misdirected — it had to be spent on compensation, replacing buildings and trying to repair the results of the IRA’s destructive efforts. And when it was given power, the IRA is just as destructive. If the same thing were to happen in their sector, Nationalists would be howling and making the same allegations. Therefore Mr Gallagher’s amendment, supported by Mr Fee, is just as bogus and invalid as the amendment that Barry McElduff wished to table.
A 3:1 ratio for investment is neither fair nor equitable, and the system is not transparent. To point that out has been an annual ritual, but we will have to make it a daily ritual until it gets through to the thick skulls of those in charge of administration that it is no longer acceptable.
The little primary school that my children went to in Beragh had to fight to get toilets. Only a matter of years ago the school still had outside toilets. Following a hard struggle, someone, condescendingly, allowed the school to have flushable toilets. The school outside Dervaghroy is more than 100 years old, and rationalisation has still to be announced. There are old schools in rural west Tyrone that have yet to be provided with modern educational facilities.
The Minister must look at other means of funding. If he cannot fight his battle in the Executive, he must look at how else to raise more than £1 billion. The best way to solve the problem is to ensure adequate provision. That would remove the possibility or allegation of bias. At present, the approach is biased. The debate has turned into the usual bigoted onslaught that we have come to expect, because when they are wrong, that is, predictably, how they defend themselves.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion and to the points that Members have raised. It is no secret that considerable resources are required to address the substantial investment needed in building work across the schools estate. My Department and I acknowledge that, and we are encouraged by Members’ recognition of the problem.
The problem is not confined to the need for investment in major works. It extends to minor capital works and maintenance. The education and library boards estimate that investment of around £84 million is needed in minor capital work and £120 million in high priority maintenance work across the controlled and maintained school sectors. In addition, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools has recently submitted around 200 applications for funding for minor capital work in maintained schools next year. That, combined with the amount of investment needed in major capital works, is the legacy of decades of underinvestment that I and the rest of the Executive have inherited and are now beginning to tackle.
Danny Kennedy raised that issue in his contribution. I found his contribution surprising because I have never experienced the bile and the vitriol that he has displayed today in the meetings of the Committee for Education, of which he is the Chairperson. He has had many opportunities during those meetings with me to raise those issues with the same fervour that he has raised them today, and he has never done so.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I will not give way. Resources are limited, and I have sought and received additional resources from the Executive. I will continue to seek more resources under the 2002 spending review. In the light of the 2000 spending review, things will be tight not only for my Department but for the entire Executive.
Danny Kennedy mentioned special schools and controlled schools. Special schools and controlled integrated schools are under the control of the education and library boards. He also raised the issue of education and library board projects that have been rejected. To be a contender, a board needs an economic appraisal and development proposal where relevant. It also needs to be allocated funds, and in order for that to happen, it must have sufficient planning and sufficient priority in respect of educational need. A further issue is the state of readiness of several schemes that the education and library boards have advanced, and I intend to take that up with them.
Although the largest part of the capital programme is directed to major capital works across all sectors, it must also be recognised that substantial funds are made available to education and library boards to undertake work in controlled schools, and to meet boards’ responsibilities for furnishing and equipping controlled and maintained schools for school transport and for school meals accommodation.
My Department is committed to improving the schools estate, but the number and the cost of major projects competing for a place in the capital programme far exceeds the resources available. Each year’s programme is directed largely towards new schools, schools rationalisation, the replacement of sub-standard accommodation and to ensure that pupils and teachers are provided with a proper learning environment. My Department’s commitment is reflected significantly in the school building programme that is announced each year.
In particular, over the past three years, funding of more than £200 million has been allocated under the conventional building programme, and a further £70 million under public-private partnerships. Moreover, £16 million has been allocated from Executive programme funds.
Over the past six years, boards have spent more than £200 million on school maintenance — an increase of 20% on previous years — and they are working towards a 10% annual reduction on the maintenance backlog under their resource allocation plans. The major capital development needs of schools are prioritised in the schools’ capital priorities planning list, which has been developed in consultation with the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and other schools interests. The capital development process is not initiated by my Department but by approaches from the boards, the CCMS and individual schools about the need for capital works. They are then drawn together, categorised by my Department and agreed with the boards and CCMS. The planning list plays an important part in the allocation of resources. At present, there are 98 projects with an estimated construction cost of some £500 million in the top three categories of the planning list: one in category 1; 11 in category 2; and 86 in category 3. The projects in category 3 can be broken down into 38 controlled schools — including 11 special schools — 24 maintained schools, 16 voluntary grammar schools, four integrated schools and four Irish-medium schools.
The backlog of work is even greater if the 80 other projects in categories 4 and 5 of the planning list are taken into account. Members should be in no doubt that I am aware of the need in all sectors. However, Members will recognise that, with so many projects competing for funding, it is impossible to meet all their needs within the available resources. The existing finite resources must be allocated on the basis of educational need, wherever it exists.
David Ford raised the issue of criteria and transparency; the priorities are published on my Department’s web site. It makes it absolutely clear that there are five categories. It outlines the number of projects: one in category 1; 11 in category 2; and 86 in category 3.
Category 3 is a broad mix of primary and post-primary projects. Of course the decisions are complex, but they are based on the priorities that are expressed by the education and library boards and the CCMS, as well as on professional advice on educational suitability, physical condition, temporary accommodation, and of course, the Programme for Government priorities.
The criteria for determining each year’s capital programme include not only educational priority, but the state of readiness of individual projects as regards planning, their cost and affordability, and, not least, the available capital resources. However, the key factor, as I have stressed before, is educational need. That is reflected in the provision of sufficient school places, appropriate teaching and curriculum facilities, and secure, healthy and suitable conditions that are conducive to teaching and learning. Educational need affects all our children, and it is paramount in my consideration of the capital programme.
My Department consults the education and library boards and the CCMS because they represent the majority of schools on the planning list and their capital priorities. Advice is also sought from the Education and Training Inspectorate and the Department’s professional advisers about the relative educational needs of the competing priorities, and I must also take account of what we are trying to achieve under the Programme for Government; for example, the reduction of the number of temporary classrooms across the schools estate, targeting social need and other equality issues.
We all share a commitment to improving the schools estate. However, I again point to the number and the cost of major projects that are competing for a place on each year’s capital programme and the fact that the costs far exceed the available resources — hence the need for resources to be directed to the highest priorities based on educational need.
As I pointed out last year, and as Members recognise, the backlog of work on school building projects cannot be addressed by conventional procurement means alone. I shall re-examine the possibility of clearing some of that backlog through further programmes under public-private procurement. That could supplement and complement the conventional building programme, and therefore permit more work to be carried out across the schools estate.
Tommy Gallagher raised the issue of progress on projects that were announced last year. Project boards and teams have been set up for all three projects. They are engaging consultants to assist in the preparation of their respective outline business cases, and it is expected that the Southern Education and Library Board and the Derry diocese projects will go to the official journal of the European Union in April and May; the North Eastern Education and Library Board project, which has encountered some land problems, will go early in the summer.
I wish to make it clear that my Department’s capital budget is not determined on a religious or sectoral basis: resources are directed to educational priority needs in all school sectors.
I also wish to comment on statements that have been made about imbalances in the allocation of capital funds. I say again that I absolutely refute any suggestion of bias in the allocation of capital resources among schools. Allocations are based on educational need. The suggestion, which has been made again today, that resources be applied on a sectoral basis is effectively asking that I elevate schools with lesser need over schools with a greater educational need.
I am not prepared to do that. It would be unjust and discriminatory. I am not prepared to discriminate against those in greatest need. There was enough of that in the past. In any one year, one sector may receive more funding or more schemes than another. However, we must not let that distract us from the imperative of allocating resources on the basis of educational need. Members may wish to note that over the past 10 years, the capital programme has been spread across 64 controlled schools, 47 maintained schools, 14 voluntary grammar schools, eight integrated schools and one Irish-medium school.
No decisions have yet been taken about next year’s capital programme. However, I met the Committee for Education last week, and I hope to announce the programme next month after I have had an opportunity to consider the Committee’s views. It is also most unfortunate that one of those Members who tabled this motion, who is also the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Education, failed to attend that meeting. Therefore he did not avail himself of the opportunity to discuss this year’s programme with me.
I hope that this information gives Members a better understanding of the backlog of capital works and the genuine difficulties that we face in trying to meet the needs of all schools. Members can be assured that I am keenly aware of the existing underinvestment in schools in all sectors. The Executive are also aware of it. That is a debate that occurs regularly among us. I will press for more resources, while continuing to ensure that resources are directed to schools with the greatest educational need.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I call once again for support for the amendment, which recognises that a solution cannot be based on a sectoral approach. That is something with which many Members have agreed in the course of the debate, and which every Member realises to be the case. Representatives of all the different sectors — controlled, integrated, Irish-medium and maintained — also agree that a solution cannot be found along the lines of a sectoral approach.
As has been exemplified during the debate, the amendment allows us to raise our common concerns about capital development and about the poor state of many classrooms right across the school landscape. It recognises an urgent need for more funding, and it also allows us all to recognise that those schools with the greatest need should have first call on funding allocations. Some Members who spoke in support of the motion agreed with that.
I want to reject completely the remarks made by Oliver Gibson. I want to remind him that the SDLP has always promoted and supported equality of opportunity, and it continues to do so. It is ludicrous to suggest that the SDLP would in some way be involved in discriminating against schools in the controlled sector in relation to any aspect of their business, but particularly in relation to the capital spending programme.
Members raised some interesting points. It is clear that there are great concerns in every constituency about the circumstances and conditions in which young children must be educated. For example, many concerns were voiced about the planning process by my Colleague John Fee and by David Ford, to mention just two. I reiterate: there are very real concerns that some of our most needy schools do not see their plans implemented quickly enough.
Many Members mentioned transparency, and that is important. The Minister clarified the different categories of schools. It is useful to know that categories 1 and 2 are at the top and are likely to receive funding. It has happened that some schools in category 3 get lifted up into the funding allocation. The Minister said that there are about 80 schools in that category, which leaves about 79 disappointed schools asking why they were not chosen instead. That is a difficult but important issue, and it necessitates further work.
The amendment is going in the right direction to tackle underfunding across all sectors.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Several Members have talked about this motion as the "annual get-at-the-Minister" or the "annual ritual on capital spending". They are right. This is the third time that this issue has been raised in the Assembly. On every occasion that this Minister has had the opportunity to announce capital spending, he has reverted to the same old sectarian pattern of discrimination against schools that cater mostly for Protestants. It will be raised again this year, and it will be raised again next year, if the Minister continues to behave in the way that he has suggested he will.
Several Members have tried to defend the Minister. Mr Fee was the most explicit with the figures. His use of figures is as twisted as the Minister’s. He started from 1997. However, it seems to have escaped his notice that the Minister was not responsible for funds in 1997. In the years during which the Minister has been responsible, a very distinct pattern emerges. I want to address that pattern.
It is very significant that all the Members who defended the Minister said that they did not know what the criterion was or how it was defined. It was almost like an act of faith in the Minister. They would not believe that he would do it, and the reason for their faith was that the imbalance was in the sector that catered mostly for the Catholic community. That is why they were prepared to place their faith in the Minister. The Minister says that he totally refutes those allegations, but he does not give us any reason to believe him. He also refuted the fact that he handed out nail bombs on Bloody Sunday, and now people say that they got them from his hands.
Let us look at the facts. In the first year that the Minister was responsible for capital spending, there were 10 projects in schools catering mostly for the Protestant community, and those amounted to £27·7 million. Of that sum, £14·3 million had already been announced by previous Ministers or was money that the Minister said he would spend when he got it some time in the future. It was not real money. Six projects in the sector dealing mostly with Catholic communities amounted to £40·3 million. In the first year there was an imbalance of three to one.
In the second year there was an improvement. The Minister announced seven projects for schools catering mostly for Protestant communities that amounted to £12·5 million and six projects for schools catering mostly for Catholic communities that amounted to £25·7 million. That was an imbalance of two to one. In April 2001 the Minister got extra money from the Executive programme funds.
A total of £2 million went to schools that cater predominantly for Protestants, and £11·1 million went to schools that cater predominantly for Catholics — that is an imbalance of five to one. He then says that he refutes the allegations. I have his figures with me. He cannot refute them; they are there in black and white. I obtained them from his Department’s press releases. The allegations stand.
I suspect that the Minister aims to do the same again this year. He does not want a debate. He hates debate. He hates scrutiny. He would rather be under the stone, away from scrutiny. That is why he refuses to answer questions when he is taken into custody on occasion. He also wants to refuse to answer questions here. What will he do this year? He will make the announcement on 21 March, just before the Assembly rises for recess. He is the Jo Moore of Sinn Féin. He tries to bury bad news on a day when it cannot be subjected to public scrutiny. Let me tell him this: if this must be a ritual next year, it will, because I want to demand justice for all schoolchildren in Northern Ireland. There is need in the controlled sector, and there is need in schools that cater mostly for Protestants, just as there is need in other schools. The Minister has to face up to that, and he has to do justice —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Your time is up, Mr Wilson.
Question put
The Assembly divided: Ayes 29; Noes 42
Ayes
Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Seamus Close, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Joe Hendron, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Noes
Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 43; Noes 30
Ayes
Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Joe Hendron, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Main Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly expresses its concern at the backlog of capital works required for school buildings across all geographic areas and all sectors of education in Northern Ireland. The Assembly asks the Minister of Education to take note of the underinvestment in the controlled sector and the pattern of capital spending announcements in recent years when deciding upon the allocation of money for school building in March 2002.

Part-Time Workers’ Pension Rights

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I tabled an amendment to this motion. Why has the Speaker’s Office rejected that amendment?

Mr Donovan McClelland: As I said earlier, it is not for the Speaker’s Office to say why that decision was made.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I beg to move
That this Assembly supports the right of all part-time workers to a pension scheme with employer contributions.
This motion speaks for itself. I am not going to labour the point. In this day and age, part-time workers should not be excluded from pension rights. Research shows that the majority of part-time workers are female. Therefore, there is a double agenda. Discrimination against part-time workers also discriminates against females.
In May 2000, the European Court of Justice ruled that part-time workers should have access to occupational pension schemes. Indeed, it was decided that that access could be backdated to 1976. There was some outcry about the cost to employers.
That aside, the motion speaks for itself. Today, when we are seeing the collapse of pensions — company pensions are increasingly devalued, state pensions are disappearing, personal pensions are the disaster story of the 1990s and stakeholder pensions are going nowhere — the situation is much worse for part-time workers.
As the dynamics of the workplace change, there is an increasing trend for people to work part-time. There are more people opting for part-time work for social and other reasons. Those people have practically no pension rights. Employers are reaping the benefits of having a part-time workforce, but they have no responsibility to contribute to part-time pensions. The result is increasingly catastrophic for part-time workers. Pensions are being devalued as the Assembly stands here and talks. The results of that particular agenda, if it continues, will be disastrous for decades to come.
Society consigns people to the rubbish heap when they retire. Those people have paid taxes and National Insurance contributions. Society is now attempting to consign to the rubbish heap those who work part-time. There is a responsibility towards retired people. British dogma places that responsibility entirely on the individual. Often, however, the individual is not in a position to ensure adequate provision. That ultimately costs the public purse, due to increased ill health among the elderly and added pressure on social services. That is happening increasingly.
Although we can only attempt to deal with the issues of the elderly and those who receive devalued pensions, there is an opportunity to ensure that we put it right for part-time workers — they have a right to a pension fund. The state is steadily withdrawing from making adequate pension provisions. Business has abdicated its responsibilities; it shoulders one of the lowest levels of social costs anywhere in Europe. That has been facilitated by British economic orthodoxy.
The Assembly has a simple choice. Does it let the situation of part-time workers continue to deteriorate, or does it act? It is a simple motion and a well-defined situation. Everyone is aware of the dilemma and the plight of part-time workers. I ask that the Assembly give its assent to the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I will start by speaking as Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning. Although the motion is cross-cutting — I understand that the Minister for Social Development will respond to it — insofar as the issue of employment rights arises, the Committee for Employment and Learning and the Committee for Social Development are certainly strongly involved and concerned.
We should all be grateful to Mr John Kelly for raising several important issues. However, there are some problems with the wording of the motion, and I will come to that shortly. That may in part reflect the truly complex nature of pensions. We all probably realised that when we watched the television advertisements produced by the Department for Social Development featuring the two talking sheepdogs in which we were advised of the need for all of us to make adequate pension provision for the future. That future is closer for some Members than for others, but it affects us all.
There are around 150,000 part-time workers in Northern Ireland, representing one in four of the total workforce. As the mover of the motion rightly said, the vast majority of those— around 125,000 — are women, so there are associated equality issues in that regard. I have no doubt that the Employment and Learning Committee fully accepts the equity principle, whereby part-time workers should be treated fairly in relation to comparable full-timers. Indeed — and this is a crucial point — the reverse is true, in that full-timers should not be disadvantaged in relation to part-timers.
The motion appears to call for something that has already been conceded in principle — through the European Court of Justice cases in 1994 and 2000, for example. Furthermore, as Mr Kelly knows from his membership of the Employment and Learning Committee, the part-time work Directive was incorporated into Northern Ireland law in July 2001 through the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001. The Directive established the legally enforceable application of equal treatment of each part-timer with a comparable full-timer. That applies not only to pensions, but to wages, holiday rights, training, and so on.
Although I support some of Mr Kelly’s sentiments, I feel — personally rather than as Chairperson of the Committee — unhappy with the wording of the motion. A literal reading implies a right for all part-timers that not all full-timers currently have. Therefore the motion would replace one possible inequity with a new one.
As I said, the equal treatment principle has been established in Northern Ireland and UK law, following on from EU law. However, a tricky issue arises: how far back should retrospective obligations fall on employers, with all the associated costs? The background research papers mention Ruth Lea of the Institute of Directors, who referred to the impact on companies. If employers are loaded with a retrospective cost that they could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate, there is the danger that one of two undesirable things could happen.
First, the wage levels of existing employees could be reduced because companies have a fixed fund of money from which to meet the wages of the existing workforce and pension payments and contributions. If one goes up, the other will have to go down.
Secondly, companies that are on the edge of remaining competitive could be forced out of operation and jobs could be lost.
Another limiting aspect of the motion is that it may represent an attempt to catch up with a model of pensions that is in decline. The mover of the motion referred to that but perhaps drew a different conclusion to the one that I drew. That point was made recently in the press. In ‘The Economist’ on 16 February, there was a very good survey of the future of pensions across the industrial world. Similarly, the business section of the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ of 19 February referred to some of those issues. In general, so-called final, salary-defined benefit pensions are on the wane. In many ways that is to be regretted, but there are deep economic forces to explain it. I am not clear that any motion made today will necessarily change such trends.
I also argue that although the motion — rightly, within its limits — focuses on the pensions of part- timers, other groups in the labour force, such as agency workers and fixed-term contract workers, have equally legitimate concerns. They are not, however, mentioned in the motion. Perhaps the issue of pensions should be dealt with in the round.
Therefore I cannot support the motion at this point, but I appreciate some of the sentiments behind it.

Mr John Dallat: Although many part-time workers enjoy good working conditions, others do not. In the past, pension schemes for part-time workers were rare; it was not considered appropriate to include them. That is now regarded as a gross miscarriage of justice.
The previous Tory Government spearheaded the campaign to deny part-time workers any rights, even the right to pay National Insurance contributions. The full impact of Tory misrule comes to light only now. In the past few days it has been disclosed that the pension rights of millions of part-time workers were torn up and consigned to the bin with the consent and approval of an uncaring Government. Many of those workers are at or near pensionable age and will be totally dependent on the Government for survival and a meagre existence, instead of being comfortably off with a healthy pension.
On 30 June 2000, Dr Seán Farren, then Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, said in his announcement of new rights for part-time workers that
"Part-timers must be valued just as highly as their full-time counterparts. Many employers already do just that; but these Regulations will ensure that part-time workers are given their full rights by all employers, and are protected against unjustified discrimination."
Dr Farren went on to say that part-timers would have rights to the same hourly rate as comparable full-time workers. They would enjoy the same access to occupational pension schemes, as well as the same access to training and the same entitlement to annual leave. Part-timers would also have the same rights to parental and maternity leave pro rata.
That announcement was of fundamental importance, because it set in motion a complete rethink of how part-time workers were to be treated. For the first time, it was acknowledged that part-timers make an enormous contribution to flexibility in the labour market, which enables the economy to function more efficiently. Surely that is in everyone’s interest.
There should be no differentiation in pension rights between part-time and full-time workers. However, as Dr Birnie pointed out, the problem does not only relate to part-timers but to many full-timers.
The disclosure to which I referred earlier is testimony that many people have lost their basic pension rights. Although the Tories are long gone, there is still serious reluctance among employers to recognise that it is in their best interests, and those of their employees, to operate pension schemes that offer workers a reasonable income at the time of their lives when they most need it.
The Government have failed to provide adequate tax relief options to make pension schemes more attractive. They have done nothing to address the problems that small businesses face when considering pension schemes for their employees. Unless they have arranged their own private pension schemes, thousands of people, who often work in the construction industry and are registered as self-employed, are also outside the loop.
The struggle for basic rights for part-time workers has been long and protracted. We need only remember the way in which ancillary staff were treated in our schools. They received neither pension rights nor holiday pay. In a world that is ruled by multinationals that fulfil the needs of their shareholders long before they consider the rights of their employees, there is a long way to go before total equality exists for everyone.
The terms "full-time" and "part-time" no longer distinguish between different groups of workers. Many people with the responsibility of a full-time occupation work few hours. University lecturers, who spend no more than 16 hours in the lecture theatre, would be most displeased if they were described as part-timers, and rightly so. Even the state has it wrong. It insists that people must work for at least 16 hours per week to qualify for family tax credit.
The cost of implementing pension rights for all workers is a factor, and the Government have a critical role to play in that. Not all employers are in a position to carry such a burden, and it is the Government’s responsibility to intervene to sort out those issues. The principle of pension rights for part-time workers should not be an issue. The problem lies in how pension rights for part-time workers are implemented and funded, and it is for Westminster to sort that out. Just as there is inequality among workers, there is inequality among employers. However, that is no excuse for doing nothing.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: My party agrees in principle that all part-time workers should have the same rights as full-time workers and their equivalents. That must be made clear in the debate. Many parts of our society rely on the part-time workforce because of the excellent service that it provides. One need only look at public sector workers such as police officers, nurses, and soldiers in the Royal Irish Regiment, many of whom serve in a part-time capacity. Those people play a crucial part in servicing our society. The motion refers to the rights of all part-time workers, which I assume includes police officers, members of the Royal Irish Regiment, nursing staff and others.
It is important to remember that part-time workers should not be given more rights than their full-time counterparts. It is unfortunate that the wording of the motion creates that level of inequality. Studies of the subject indicate that part-time workers must have a right to a pension scheme with employer contributions. I assume that the Member composed his speech in Irish and it lost something in translation. The translated version of his speech missed a crucial point — employer contributions are voluntary. The motion would, therefore, make it compulsory for employers to give part-time workers something that they are not obliged to give to full-time workers. On that basis, we must recognise that, as the motion would create that inequality, it cannot and should not get the support of the House.
I hope that a motion can be tabled at a later date that will resolve this problem caused by careless wording, and that it will promote the idea that part-time workers should receive the same rights — not more rights or special rights — as their full-time equivalents. The amendment that I tabled with the Speaker’s Office would have made that simple change. Given other Members’ remarks, I think that that amendment would have been approved. I am disappointed with the Speaker’s Office, but that is another matter.
The motion would not achieve what John Kelly said that it would achieve. He said that the motion speaks for itself, but I have shown that that is not the case. The motion differs from the Member’s argument, which is unfortunate.
The motion would place a burden on all employers to provide a contributory pension scheme. That would make employers think twice before they made any jobs available, whether those jobs were for full-time workers or part-time workers. People should consider that carefully. It is worth stating that there is no requirement on employers to run such a pension scheme. However, where a scheme exists, it should be open to all employees, whether they are full-time or part-time. According to European law, that can be contested by employees who think that they are being discriminated against. A good employer will provide a voluntary pension scheme. However, it is wrong for the motion to be approved because it supposes that such a scheme is compulsory, when that is not the case.
It is unfortunate that we cannot amend the motion, because that would allow the House to give full-time workers and their equivalents the support that they deserve. I hope that we will be able to rectify that at a later stage. On that basis, my party opposes the motion.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Our amendment was submitted to correct a motion that was clearly not in order. The amendment should be reconsidered. It is the duty of the Speaker’s Office to ensure that every motion that is tabled falls within the parameters of the law of the House. This motion does not do that.

Mr Donovan McClelland: As I said earlier, the matter is the Speaker’s decision, and the Speaker does not have to give a reason for accepting or rejecting an amendment.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not asking the Speaker to give a reason. The motion is not in order. The House pays people to ensure that only motions that are in order are tabled. Those people have a duty to do that. The matter should be referred back to the Speaker’s Office. I am not commenting on the Speaker. He may be sleeping, eating or drinking — I hope that he is drinking water. My argument is simply that the motion is not in order.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Dr Paisley, the Speaker has ruled that the motion is in order.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thought that Dr Paisley was about to suggest that the Speaker might have been participating in line dancing. We know how he likes to huff and puff about such things.
The debate is timely. Recently, not a week has gone by without the media covering a story about pension schemes that are in dire straits. Landmark judgements have been made by the European Court of Justice that suggest that part-time workers who have been excluded from company pension schemes may have been discriminated against. That matter should concern us all.
We have heard about grand plans for pension simplification, and we should make every effort to ensure that pensions are not eradicated.
Many people feel that the state will look after them in their old age, but I am not convinced that that is so. Full-time workers often feel that state pension provision is not adequate. Given that the majority of part-time workers are women, sex discrimination is often used as a basis for pursuing claims, and the needs of the rural community must also be addressed as part-time work is necessary to augment agricultural incomes.
However, the issue for part-time workers is one of simple economics. If a scheme is available, part-time workers often find that the price that they have to pay for the administration of the scheme, and their contribution to it, is far too expensive, given the wages that they earn.
I congratulate my Colleague John Kelly for bringing this motion to the House. He has succeeded in highlighting concerns shared by people from all constituencies and all political backgrounds. I sympathise with the thrust of the motion, and I call on the Minister for Social Development to have the matter investigated. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Mr Jim Shannon: As has been said, the DUP wishes to see equal rights for all — not just for those in part-time work but for those in full-time work. The proposal fails to meet that demand for equal rights. For many years, my Colleagues and party members have lobbied for the right of part-time and full-time workers to a pension scheme with employer contributions, so I am surprised that Mr John Kelly and Sinn Féin are so concerned about people who work for their money, such as those in the part-time Royal Irish Regiment and the part-time Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Not so long ago, we debated the issue of RUC part-time officers’ receiving pensions after their massive contribution to, and sacrifice for, the safety of the Province over 30 years. As I said then, the IRA never differentiated between full-time and part-time police and soldiers when setting those men and women up as targets for its bombs and bullets. In fact, one third of all the RUC officers killed in the troubles were part-time constables, and a great many more part-time constables were maimed and injured by terrorist attacks. The Royal Ulster Constabulary’s and the Royal Irish Regiment’s part-time personnel were denied their rights, and it is a violation of their basic human rights to treat them differently from the rest of the population, especially when they were engaged —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. You are straying from the subject of the motion.

Mr Jim Shannon: I do not believe that I am. I am referring to their rights as part-time and full-time workers. They were denied their rights, and to treat them differently from the rest of the population also violates their basic human rights, especially given that they were engaged in the most dangerous job in the Province. We have all seen what has happened as a result of that, with the crime waves and other problems in the Province. However, those men and women have worked particularly long and unusual hours, and they deserve a pension on that account alone. They put their lives on the line for us every day. Are Members aware that full-time members of the Police Service do not —

Mr Donovan McClelland: This is not a debate on the RUC Reserve. Will the Member please stick to the motion.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that the Member who moved the motion spoke completely contrary to what it claimed, surely my Colleague is entitled to some latitude when making his argument.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not a point of order, Mr Paisley. The problem is the degree of latitude that Mr Shannon is expecting from the Chair. Mr Shannon, I ask you please to stick to the motion.

Mr Jim Shannon: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am quite happy to. I simply want to make Members aware of part-time and full-time rights and of the fact that members of the new Police Service do not receive pension rights until they have worked for nine years. Is that right? We must address part-time and full-time pension rights. That is my party’s goal, and that is why we cannot support the motion at this time. We are all aware of the contribution of part-time workers, not just within the police and the UDR — or the Royal Irish Regiment, as it is now known — but in hospitals and other places.
It is not realised that many who work part-time, and even some full-time workers, have only a state pension on which to fall back. The rights of everyone should be incorporated and protected.
Many receive a state pension of around £70 a week. My constituents and many others inform me that that barely covers fuel bills, let alone food, clothing, and so on. Those who built the country and held society together are being left in their old age to adapt to poverty, and, in some cases, destitution. Some are more deserving of a pension than most, yet it is for an employer to decide whether to provide an employer-contributed pension, and sometimes they object on the grounds that their profits would be cut.
The lack of money available to those who have spent their lives in employment means that many who are in their seventies continue to work, because they have been unable to earn enough money to survive during old age. Pensioners are working when they should be taking it easy, fulfilling ambitions and enjoying hobbies. The motion does not address the fact that pensioners have worked hard for a lifetime. Many full-time employees do not have pension rights. It was announced today that the future is no brighter for our children. The speculation is that our children will be working well into their seventies, as their pension rights might not be protected, even if they are in full-time employment.
Legislation that entitles part-time workers to an employer-contributed pension should apply to full-time employees also. Many in this country cannot save money until they are in their forties, and sometimes they have no time to make any savings. If employers made contributions for all workers, we could eradicate pensioner poverty, move towards a fully sustainable society and eradicate problems such as hospital wards full of pensioners suffering from malnutrition and hypothermia.
We need full, not piecemeal, legislation that will safeguard the future of all workers — all workers deserve pensions and pension rights. It is a crying shame that the Government do not reward those who have worked the hardest and the longest, and those who have carried out the most dangerous jobs in this country, with legislation that will protect their lifestyle well into their latter years.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. Just as we do not want a society that promotes a low-wage economy, with few or no rights for workers, we do not want one that does not value people when their working years are over. Society has a responsibility to ensure that workers receive adequate provision during their employment and when they retire. In addition, employers have a responsibility to ensure that full-time and part-time staff receive their full entitlement. Ultimately, employers profit from their workers, so it is only right that employees should receive adequate provision.
Contrary to the belief of some who spoke earlier, who seem to have misread and misunderstood the motion, the proposal is based on the belief that part-time workers are not treated equally — it is an equality issue. It is imperative that we establish a minimum standard of fairness for part-time workers, so that they will not receive less favourable treatment than their full-time colleagues. Women, in particular those from low-income backgrounds, fall into that category — they are disadvantaged from the outset. It is important that we implement the European Directive as quickly as possible and introduce progressive legislation on the matter.
Society encourages flexible working, and there is a range of working patterns that meets the needs of employers and the desire of employees for greater freedom of choice in organising their working lives. During the past 10 years the fastest growth has been in employment that is not based on a standard 35-hour, 37-hour or 40-hour week. Since 1989, the percentage of part-time jobs as a proportion of all jobs has risen from 24% to 29%. We must recognise that different work patterns exist and that there is no justification for treating employees differently simply because of the number of hours worked. We must move as quickly as possible towards progressive, rights-based legislation that provides for that and for the right of part-time workers to make pension contributions. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Mr Oliver Gibson: The motion is wrong — in fact, it is contrary to EU Directives.
I support the idea that part-time workers deserve the same opportunities as full-time workers. However, I wish to mention an area of employment that has not been mentioned, but which is the fastest growing area of employment arrangements, especially in the west of the Province — the contractual arrangement.
Nowadays many firms do not employ as large a workforce as in the past. Most of the work is contracted out; therefore we find that families — and extended families — organise themselves into groups. Often that is done under the heading of farm diversification. Those people make contractual arrangements with a parent firm to make items of equipment to a standard specification.
It is a growing area. In the west of the Province, many lorry drivers are driving under a contractual arrangement. Many of the large contracting firms are now subcontracting work to people who at one time may have been part of their workforce.
That has created a new area of employment. Some of the work is part-time by nature or perhaps because of the size of a farm or the size of a group. A group will decide how many items it can produce within a certain period. I shall give an example. One of the local firms in my area contracts out the making of parts for washing machines. Group members may choose to produce three parts per week; they can do the work in their own time, and during the hours that suit them. However, it is a contractual arrangement.
I know of other firms that have always operated pension schemes. They have made part-time or full-time work opportunities available to every employee. Some firms have been famously successful in that. I know of one case in which the actuary had to warn all those who were contracted to the firm that contributions had to be reduced because the outcomes were going to exceed the legally allowed amounts in pension schemes.
The motion does not take account of the fastest growing area of employment arrangements because of the change that has occurred during the past 10 to 15 years. People have decided to accept more personal responsibility and more accountability for their own financial arrangements and have opted to go into a contractual agreement with others.
Therefore, many could be classified as part-time workers, but allied with other activities of that household. Unfortunately, the motion fails to take account of the largest group in my constituency — those who are moving into self-contracting arrangements.
I support the proposal mentioned by Mr Paisley Jnr and Jim Shannon. There have been situations in which pension arrangements for part-time workers have been prevented; for example, for those in the Royal Irish Regiment and the UDR.
When I said that I supported the idea that part-time workers should have the same opportunities as full-time workers, it is important that we remember that that change is taking place. What was once known as the popular system of employment in west of the Province is rapidly changing as people take on personal responsibilities and move into their own contractual arrangements, whether that be driving a lorry or manufacturing items. Sometimes a group — up to eight people — would enter into a contractual arrangement. They would go into production either in the farmyards or on the manufacturer’s premises.
Those arrangements have not been recognised and are not being discussed. The Fair Employment Commission seemed to have no interest in that area when the Committee met with it. The area is expanding and is now becoming so large that the Assembly will have to recognise this new employment arrangement. It is almost a halfway house between the self-employed person and the person who is in full-time direct employment. It is good that the Assembly should encourage the old Ulster adage of self-help, self-improvement and being responsible for one’s own finances. Encouraging those opportunities should be part of the debate.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I have listened carefully to the various contributions made in this short debate. Some points were relevant to the motion; many were not. Interestingly, proponents of the motion seemed to spend little time on the motion and veered to wider issues, whereas those opposing it actually dealt with the issues. That may reflect that fact that — as several Members pointed out — the motion as drafted does not make much sense.
I shall spell out the position clearly. If an employer provides an occupational pension scheme for his full-time employees, part-time employees doing comparable work must be granted access to the scheme. That is the position. The mover of the motion either failed to understand that position or else his comments simply did not acknowledge it. The only exception can be if the employer can objectively justify the exclusion of part-time workers. If a part-time employee feels that he has been excluded from an occupational pension scheme unfairly, he can seek redress via an industrial tribunal in accordance with the legislation laid down — the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000.
Let us be clear about the motion. Like other Members, I was perplexed when I read it. Several Members, including Dr Birnie in his capacity as Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, Mr Paisley Jnr and Mr Shannon, have pointed out that, as drafted, the motion calls for all part-time workers to have access to a pension scheme with employer contributions. That would put part-time employees in a more advantageous position than full-time employees. Where is the equality in that?
I listened to the people behind this motion talking about equality, but as Members have pointed out, there is no requirement on employers to offer full-time employees a pension scheme with employer contributions. If the motion were to be implemented as drafted, it could have serious consequences. For example, it would effectively undermine the whole voluntary nature of occupational pension provision. The increased costs to employers would be a real disincentive to employ part-time workers.
The mover of the motion cannot have given much thought to the way in which it was drafted. Perhaps I am being too generous, but he could not possibly have intended the outcomes that would flow from an implementation of the motion. Perhaps I am being too generous; perhaps inequality is what we want in this area. That is a matter that the mover of the motion, and those who supported him, did not go into in any detail.
The Deputy Chairperson of the Social Development Committee asked for the Minister to investigate the matter. We have investigated it. If she and some of her Colleagues had done the slightest bit of investigation or homework on this issue, they would not have drafted the motion as they did.
Pensions are important to us all. One of our main aims is to ensure that everyone can look forward to a decent income in retirement. The importance of pensions has been vividly illustrated in recent weeks. Members will have seen a great deal of coverage on the subject of pensions in many of the broadsheets and other publications. Occupational pension schemes, whether defined-benefit or defined-contribution, remain a very good option for securing a decent income in retirement.
However, I stress that occupational pension schemes are provided voluntarily. There is no requirement on an employer to provide such a scheme for his employees, be they part-time or full-time. Where an employer has five or more employees, whether full-time or part-time, and he does not have an occupational pension scheme or make prescribed contributions to a personal pension scheme available to his employees, the employer must offer the relevant employees access to a stakeholder pension scheme. There is no requirement that the employer make contributions to the stakeholder scheme. However, the employer must offer access to a designated scheme that his employees can join if they wish.
The existing provision places a statutory obligation on employers who offer a pension scheme to full-time employees to offer access to comparable part-time employees, unless employers can objectively justify their exclusion. That approach is right. There will be agreement in the House on that issue. There is a delicate balancing act between protecting the rights of employees on the one hand and ensuring that we minimise the disincentives to employers offering pension schemes on the other. The existing statutory provision for equal access rights is designed to safeguard part-time employees from unscrupulous employers.
It offers them the right of redress if they think that they have been unfairly excluded from their employer’s pension scheme. It is entirely proper that part-time employees are protected in that way. That is currently on the statute book. It is why most of us who know anything about the issue and have done our homework on it are perplexed at the motion as drafted.
I will pick up on some points that were made during the debate. Dr Birnie mentioned fixed-term workers. I understand that the Department for Employment and Learning is currently reviewing the position of fixed-term workers. One Member spoke about low-paid workers and women workers. The state second pension is designed to offer pension provision to low-paid workers.
Mr Dallat referred to the problems faced by small businesses. A United Kingdom-wide review, led by an independent pensions expert, is examining the simplification of pension law to help to make it easier for employers to run such schemes. Stakeholder pensions offer access to a private pension where the employer does not run such a scheme. Mr Dallat also raised the issue of tax credits. He will know that that is not a matter for the devolved Administration. It is a matter for the Inland Revenue.
Mr Shannon, the Member for Strangford, spoke about the inadequacy of state pensions. However, as Members will be aware, the minimum income guarantee ensures that nobody is solely dependent on a state pension. The pension credit, which will replace the minimum income guarantee from 2003, will be even more generous, and that is as it should be.
Other issues were raised during the debate that had little to do with the motion. The mover and others made sweeping statements about pensions. To say that part-time employees have practically no pension rights is simply untrue, as I and other Members have illustrated. To say that people who have paid taxes and National Insurance contributions are consigned to the rubbish heap when they retire is also untrue. It must be the aim of Government to encourage people to make provision for retirement during their working life. That is why the state second pension was introduced, and that is why we are running the series of press and television advertisements that have been referred to in order that people can make an informed choice. That is why the pension credit is being introduced. The idea that people are not committed to the matter is simply untrue.
The motion as drafted does not accord with the basic legal position. It would put part-time workers in a more advantageous position than full-time workers, and it seems to ignore completely the current statutory provision that guarantees that, where an occupational pension scheme is available, it must also be made available to part-time employees, unless the employer can show good objective reasons why that should not be. If the employer tries to do that, the part-time employee can take legal action.
Therefore, I have no hesitation in recommending that the House reject this ill-informed, badly drafted motion. Those who spoke with a genuine interest in the plight of people approaching retirement will note the utter hypocrisy of Sinn Féin Members in particular. They talk about the need to protect people in their old age, despite the fact that many people are in their graves today as a result of actions carried out by them and their colleagues. Those who died were not allowed to enjoy the fruits of their retirement, with their family or anyone else.
Sinn Féin Members talk about social welfare, pensioners and other issues as if their party has helped people in those situations during the past 30 years. The money that was wasted during its campaign of terror could have contributed towards pensions, health, education and all the rest.

Mr John Kelly: The last comments from the Minister effectively sum up the negative attitude — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr John Kelly: — displayed by the DUP today. They further highlight the DUP’s hypocritical approach to social issues. It is good at mocking, and talking about years of violence, while it washes its hands of its participation in violence over the past 30 years.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind Members to restrict their comments to the motion.

Mr John Kelly: I notice that you did not ask the previous Member who spoke to stick to comments on the motion.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Your ruling is now being challenged. Are you prepared to deal with this Member as you dealt with Mr McCartney?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I will make that decision.

Mr John Kelly: It is disappointing to listen to the DUP. The motion was an attempt to address a prevailing issue. Perhaps the DUP’s objection to the motion is based on the fact that of the six million part-time workers throughout England, Scotland and Wales, 4·8 million are women. The DUP’s view of women seems to be similar to that of the Taliban. However, I will not labour the point.
I take on board Esmond Birnie’s point that there are anomalies that must be addressed — I have no problem with that. If the DUP wishes to propose a motion, I have no problem with that either. The Minister said that part-time workers ought to have the same rights as full-time workers, but that that depended on an objective analysis. He said that if workers felt that they were being treated unfairly they could go to court. That people should be subjected to such stress in order to get what they are entitled to does not seem — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Mr John Kelly: — to be an objective approach. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg had to decide in May 2000 whether the pensions of part-time workers should be backdated to 1976. It is interesting that the case was brought to the European Court by women who had no other recourse and no other means of addressing the injustices of their position as part-time workers. They had to bring the case to court not as part-time workers who had been denied their pension rights, but on the basis that, under European law, the occupational pension scheme had sexually discriminated against them.
I am attempting — indeed, we are attempting — to remove those anomalies from the existing hardships that part-time workers face.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Mr John Kelly: Therefore despite the huffing and puffing, the muttering and gibbering of those who have created mayhem in their own communities in the past 30 years, I ask the House to support the motion.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It would have been nice if we had been informed that it was a Royal Ulster Constabulary policewoman who did that great job in Europe.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Dr Paisley, I do not think that that is a point of order. [Interruption]. Order.
Question put and negatived.
Adjourned at 4.51 pm.